Computerized method and system for estimating an effect on liability using claim data accessed from claim reporting software

ABSTRACT

Computer-implemented methods and systems for estimating liability for a vehicle accident are provided. In an embodiment, claim data may be accessed for one or more claims relating to a vehicle accident from a first database on a computer system. In some embodiments, the claim data may be accessed if the claim data is not stored on a second database. In other embodiments, the accessed claim data may be stored on a second database on the computer system. The second database may be associated with a method and system for estimating liability in the vehicle accident. In further embodiments, the stored claim data for one or more of the claims may be accessed on the second database for use by the method and system for estimating liability in the vehicle accident.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0001] 1. Field of the Invention

[0002] The present invention generally relates to estimation ofliability in an accident. Certain embodiments relate tocomputer-implemented systems and methods for estimating liability in amotor vehicle accident.

[0003] 2. Description of the Related Art

[0004] A typical motor vehicle accident claims organization may face anumber of challenges in processing claims. Some of these challenges mayinclude assessment of liability, threat of litigation, and experiencelevel of claims adjusters. A motor vehicle accident claims organizationmay add value to the liability assessment process by producing asolution that enhances the liability assessment process and increasesthe effectiveness of the claims adjuster.

[0005] Assessment of liability is one important challenge facing aclaims organization. It is believed that a large percentage of motorvehicle accident claims may be assessed at 100% liability against theinsured when the claimant may actually share in the fault. While it maybe difficult to pinpoint exact reasons for this practice among claimsadjusters, several factors influencing the tendency to assess 100%liability against the insured may include, but are not limited to,ineffective negotiation, large case loads, inadequate time toeffectively assess liability, and a desire to settle claims quickly toavoid litigation.

[0006] Considering the litigious nature of claimants, and the presenceof claimant counsel during negotiations, claims adjusters may need torigorously investigate characteristics of a motor vehicle accidentscene, duties of the insured, and contributing actions of the claimantbefore assessing liability.

[0007] The experience level of claims adjusters may typically be low dueto a lack of longevity in such a position. Over the years, a dramaticshortening of the training regimen for most new claims adjusters mayreduce the effectiveness of claims adjusters. In addition, the lack ofexperienced claims adjusters available to advise and teach new claimsadjusters worsens the situation. Furthermore, new claims adjusters maynot be as knowledgeable in claims adjusting practices and the laws oftheir jurisdiction, as are senior claims adjusters, and consequentlythey may make “best guess” assessments. Therefore, a lack of trained andexperienced claims adjusters may tend to produce an inadequate and/orinequitable assessment process.

[0008] Accordingly, it may be advantageous to provide a system andmethod to assess fault or liability in motor vehicle accidents byrelying on expert knowledge collected from experienced claims adjustersregarding the influence of multiple characteristics of a motor vehicleaccident proportional to the liability of the claimant and the insured.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0009] An embodiment of the present invention relates to acomputer-implemented method for estimating liability in an accident.

[0010] In one embodiment, liability estimation in a vehicle accident maybe based on multiple characteristics that describe the accident.Characteristics that describe either a real, a past, or a theoreticalaccident may include but are not limited to, roadway configuration,accident type, traffic controls at the vehicle accident scene, right ofway, and impact points of each motor vehicle. The right of way may beestablished from real characteristics of a vehicle accident andquestions about the real characteristics. At least one of the realcharacteristics may include: roadway configuration, accident type, rightof way, or traffic control. Alternatively, a claims adjuster may specifythe right of way.

[0011] The real set of characteristics may be compared to past ortheoretical characteristics to determine a set of matchingcharacteristics. The liability for the real accident may be based on anestimate of liability associated with the matching set of past ortheoretical characteristics. The estimated liability for the realaccident determined in this way may be a base liability.

[0012] The liabilities associated with the characteristics of the pastor theoretical accident may be associated with an impact group inaddition to other characteristics of a real accident. An impact groupmay include a pair of impact points for a past or theoretical accident.A pair of impact points may include an impact point for each of twovehicles involved in an accident. Each pair of impact points may beassociated with two values of base liability: a lower bound of liabilityand an upper bound of liability. One set of values may correspond to onevehicle with the right of way, and the other set of values maycorrespond to the other vehicle having the right of way. Each of thepairs of impact points in a given impact group may have the same baseliability and lower and upper bound of liability.

[0013] Effects on the liability due to factors specific to the vehicle,driver, and environment may be taken into account by identifyingspecific factors that may be relevant to the real accident. Factors forpast or theoretical accidents may be associated with estimates of acontribution to liability. An estimate of the contribution of thefactors to liability in the real accident may be determined byassociating the factors relevant to the real accident with the estimatesof the contribution of the factors for the past or theoreticalaccidents.

[0014] The contribution of the factors to the liability may also beadjusted. The adjustments may take into account sets of characteristicscorresponding to the real accident and/or the preference of a claimsorganization. A situational weight (i.e., an adjustment related to thecharacteristics of a specific accident) may be based on knowledgeobtained from experienced claims adjusters. Alternatively, thesituational weight may be inferred from answers to a series of questionsrelating to the factor and accident.

[0015] The individual factors may be adjusted by a ranking factor thataccounts for the preference of the claims organization. Furthermore, thesum of the contribution of the factors to liability may be adjusted by afactor influence that may also account for the preference of a claimsorganization.

[0016] The contribution of a factor may be so significant that it may benecessary to perform a further adjustment. Such a factor may adjust theliability beyond the lower and upper bounds defined for the liability.The contribution of the factor may be ignored and an absolute liabilityvalue may be assigned to be the liability estimate.

[0017] The liability might be expressed as a range rather than a singlevalue. The range may be created using a range radius. The range radiusmay be a percentage value that may be added to and subtracted from thefinal liability to create the range.

[0018] A knowledge acquisition utility may be used to determine impactgroups for a given set of characteristics of a past or theoreticalaccident. An impact group may be a collection of pairs of impact points.Each of the pairs of impact points in the impact group may have the sameliability and lower and upper bounds of liability. Experienced claimsadjusters may use the knowledge acquisition utility to determine thenumber of impact groups for each set of characteristics and the impactpoint pairs in each impact group.

[0019] A claims organization may employ experienced claims adjusters touse a tuning utility to estimate characteristics and properties of pastor theoretical accidents such as base liabilities and lower and upperbounds of liabilities. Characteristics and properties may be enteredinto a knowledge acquisition utility associated with the tuning utility.The user may then run pre-configured test scenarios, analyze theresults, and refine the characteristics and properties as necessary. Theprocedure may be repeated until the user is satisfied.

[0020] A computer-implemented method for estimating liability in avehicle accident may include-several steps. The user may provide to acomputer system claim data regarding the vehicle accident in a graphicaluser interface. The user may provide to a computer system data for eachvehicle involved in a vehicle accident. The user may provide dataregarding characteristics of the vehicle accident. To assist the user inproviding data regarding characteristics of the vehicle accident, thecomputer system may display graphical representations of thecharacteristics such as the roadway configurations, accident types, andimpact points. The user may identify discords within the entered data.The user may determine a most likely set of characteristics associatedwith the real accident. As needed, the user may consult a legalreference system to determine legal information specific to thejurisdiction in which the accident occurred. The user may be providedwith an assessment report that summarizes the estimate of liability,data used to determine the estimate, and negotiating points regardingthe estimate.

[0021] The assessment of liability in a vehicle accident may involveanalysis of multiple statements of the description of an accident. Inone embodiment, the consistency between different witness statements maybe assessed. A graphical user interface used for estimating liabilitymay be used to collect information from witness statements. The computersystem may compare details given in each witness description. The systemmay present the results of the comparison in tabular form, listing foreach party, its version of the detail described. Details withinconsistent versions may be noted in the tabulation of results.

[0022] In one embodiment for analysis of witness statements, a graphicaluser interface for estimating liability may be combined with accidentreconstruction methodology to assess the credibility of details inwitness accident descriptions. Accident reconstruction software may beapplied to determine details relating to speed, time, and distance ofthe vehicles involved in the accident. The credibility of a witnessstatement may be evaluated according to its consistency with the resultsof the accident reconstruction software.

[0023] In one embodiment, a graphical user interface for estimatingliability may be combined with a credibility assessment method to createa reliable accident description. The details relevant to the accidentmay be tested by a credibility assessment method such as accidentreconstruction software. The most credible version of the details maythen be combined into a single, reliable version of an accidentdescription.

[0024] In one embodiment, a method may include accessing claim data forone or more claims relating to a vehicle accident from a first databaseon a computer system. The claim data may be stored on a second databaseon the computer system. In an embodiment, the second database may beassociated with a method and system for estimating liability in thevehicle accident. The method may further include accessing the claimdata for one or more of the claims on the second database for use by themethod and system for estimating liability in a vehicle accident.

[0025] Some embodiments may include accessing claim data for one or moreclaims relating to a vehicle accident from a first database on acomputer system following a user-defined time period. Other embodimentsmay include accessing claim data in response to a request from a user.

[0026] In an embodiment, a method may include accessing claiminformation on a computer system required by a pre-configured claimreport for an accident from a database if a user-specified condition ismet. The pre-configured claim report may be created from the accessedclaim information. In some embodiments, the pre-configured claim reportmay be sent to a user-specified location. Alternatively, claiminformation on a computer system required by a pre-configured claimreport for an accident may be accessed from a database periodicallyfollowing a user-specified time period. In other embodiments, a methodmay include requesting a pre-configured claim report on a computersystem relating to an accident.

[0027] One embodiment of a method of estimating liability for anaccident may include recording vehicle data of a vehicle relating to theaccident in memory on a computer system. In an embodiment, the recordedvehicle data may be stored on the computer system. Some embodiments mayinclude decoding the vehicle data. An effect of the vehicle data on theliability of a party in the accident may be estimated.

[0028] Other embodiments may include recording vehicle data in memory ona first computer system. The recorded vehicle data may be stored on thefirst computer system. The method may further include retrieving thestored vehicle data from the first computer system with a secondcomputer system. An effect of the vehicle data on liability of a partyin the accident may be estimated.

[0029] An embodiment of a method for assessing a claim in a vehicleaccident on a computer system may include estimating injuries to one ormore vehicle occupants in the vehicle accident. The injuries to the oneor more vehicle occupants may be estimated from one or more variables.The method may further include estimating damages due to injuries of theone or more vehicle occupants. Some embodiments may include estimatingthe liability of parties in the accident. Adjusted damages may bedetermined from the estimated damages and the liability of the parties.

[0030] In one embodiment, a method of estimating liability for anaccident on a computer system may include estimating pre-impact speedsof one or more vehicles in the accident from the crush damage of the oneor more vehicles. The method may further include estimating an effect ofthe pre-impact speeds of the one or more vehicles on the liability ofparties in the accident.

[0031] In one embodiment, a method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident using a computer system may include estimating a theoreticalpath of a reference vehicle and estimating a theoretical path of areacting vehicle. The reacting vehicle may react to a danger of anaccident with the reference vehicle. The method may further includeassessing the opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident.Some embodiments may also include estimating a contribution to liabilityto the reacting vehicle based on the opportunity of the reacting vehicleto avoid the accident.

[0032] In certain embodiments, a method of estimating liability for avehicle accident using a computer system may include estimating atheoretical path of a straight traveling vehicle. The theoretical pathof a turning vehicle that is in the same lane at the completion of aturn as the straight traveling vehicle may then be estimated. Theopportunity of at least one vehicle traveling at a specified speed toavoid the accident may be assessed. A contribution to liability to atleast one vehicle based on the opportunity of the vehicle to avoid theaccident may be estimated.

[0033] Another embodiment of a method of estimating liability for avehicle accident may include estimating an actual speed of a vehicleinvolved in an accident. At least one specified speed of a vehicleinvolved in the accident may be provided to the computer system. Theactual speed may then be compared to the at least one specified speed.The method may then include estimating an effect on liability based onthe comparison.

[0034] In some embodiments, a method of estimating liability for avehicle accident using a computer system may include selecting aspecified speed of a vehicle involved in an accident. The method maythen include assessing whether the vehicle had an opportunity to avoidthe accident at the specified speed. An effect on liability based on theopportunity to avoid the accident may then be estimated.

[0035] Other embodiments of a method of estimating liability for avehicle accident using a computer system may include estimating a speedfor avoiding of a vehicle, which may be an approximate speed that allowsthe vehicle an opportunity to avoid the accident. A specified speed ofthe vehicle involved in an accident may then be provided. The speed foravoiding may be compared to the specified speed. The method may furtherinclude assessing an opportunity to avoid the accident based on thecomparison. In an embodiment, an effect on liability based on theopportunity to avoid the accident may be estimated.

[0036] Another embodiment of a method of estimating liability for avehicle accident using a computer system may include estimating at leastone stopping distance of a vehicle. A stopping distance may be anapproximate distance for the vehicle traveling at a specified speed tostop to avoid the accident. The method may also include estimating aperception distance, which may be an approximate distance from theaccident at which the vehicle sensed danger of an accident. Anopportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident may be assessed usingthe perception distance. In one embodiment, an effect on liability basedon the opportunity to avoid the accident may be estimated.

[0037] Certain embodiments of a method of estimating liability for avehicle accident using a computer system may include estimating atheoretical path of at least one point on a reference vehicle and atleast one point on a reacting vehicle. The opportunity of the reactingvehicle to avoid the accident using the theoretical path of at least onepoint may be assessed. The method may further include estimating aneffect on liability for the reacting vehicle based on the opportunity ofthe reacting vehicle to avoid the accident.

[0038] Some embodiments of a method of estimating liability for avehicle accident may include estimating coordinates of a collision areathat includes a collision point. The collision area may include alocation where a reference vehicle and a reacting vehicle are likely tooccupy at impact. A time for the reference vehicle to clear thecollision area may be estimated. A time for the reacting vehicle toreach the collision area may also be estimated, such that the reactingvehicle avoids the accident. The method may further include assessing anopportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident using theestimated time for the reacting vehicle to reach the collision area. Inan embodiment a contribution to liability to the reacting vehicle basedon the opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident may beassessed.

[0039] In one embodiment, a method may include providing a computersystem configured to access a memory such that the memory may include atheoretical path of at least one vehicle in an accident. The memory mayinclude a collision area. The collision area may be displayed as agraphical image in a graphical user interface. The method may furtherinclude displaying at least one vehicle as a graphical image in agraphical user interface. In one embodiment, the theoretical path may bedisplayed as a graphical image in a graphical user interface.

[0040] Some embodiments of a method of estimating liability for anaccident using a computer system may include generating one or morequestions relating to an accident. One or more sets of answerscorresponding to the one or more questions may be provided to thecomputer system. A set of answers may include answers to a questionobtained from one or more sources. The method may further includeestimating the effect of at least one factor on liability using at leastone answer.

[0041] In certain embodiments, a method of estimating liability for anaccident using a computer system may include generating a question onone or more topics relating to the accident. The method may furtherinclude providing a set of answers corresponding to the question to thecomputer system. The set of answers may include one or more answersobtained from one or more sources. An answer may be selected from theset of answers for use in estimating liability in the accident. In anembodiment, the effect of a factor on liability using the selectedanswer may be estimated.

[0042] In some embodiments, a question may be associated with one ormore answers. At least one answer may be associated with a set ofadditional questions. An answer associated with a set of additionalquestions may be then be selected. The method may further includegenerating a set of additional questions associated with the selectedanswer.

[0043] In another embodiment, a method may include displaying a firstscreen on a computer system for entering answers to a question relatingto an accident from two or more sources. Two or more answers from thetwo or more sources may be entered on the first screen. The method mayfurther include displaying a second screen for selecting an answer fromthe two or more answers for use in estimating liability. The user may beallowed to select an answer for use in estimating the effect of a factoron liability on the second screen.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0044] A better understanding of the present invention may be obtainedwhen the following detailed description of preferred embodiments isconsidered in conjunction with the following drawings, in which:

[0045]FIG. 1 depicts an embodiment of a network diagram of a wide areanetwork suitable for implementing various embodiments.

[0046]FIG. 2 depicts an embodiment of a computer system suitable forimplementing various embodiments.

[0047]FIG. 3 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a liabilityestimation process.

[0048]FIG. 4 is a diagram representing accident types according to oneembodiment.

[0049]FIG. 5 is a diagram representing roadway configurations accordingto one embodiment.

[0050]FIG. 6 is a roadway configuration/accident type matrix ofapplicability according to one embodiment.

[0051]FIG. 7a is a flow chart for determining the right of way accordingto one embodiment.

[0052]FIG. 7b is a group of flow charts corresponding to the flow chartin FIG. 5a according to one embodiment.

[0053]FIG. 8a is a diagram illustrating impact points on a motor vehicleaccording to one embodiment.

[0054]FIG. 8b is a table of impact groups for roadwayconfiguration/accident type combinations according to one embodiment.

[0055]FIG. 9a includes tables illustrating a first method of assessingthe contribution of factors to the liability according to oneembodiment.

[0056]FIG. 9b includes a table illustrating a second method of assessingthe contribution of factors to the liability according to oneembodiment.

[0057]FIG. 9c includes a table illustrating a third method of assessingthe contribution of factors to the liability according to oneembodiment.

[0058]FIG. 10a is a flow chart for assessing the contribution of alcoholusage to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to a firstembodiment.

[0059]FIG. 10b is a flow chart for assessing the contribution of alcoholusage to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to a secondembodiment.

[0060]FIG. 11 is a flow chart for assessing the contribution of aconstruction zone to liability in a motor vehicle accident according toone embodiment.

[0061]FIG. 12 is a flow chart for assessing the contribution ofcorrective lenses to liability in a motor vehicle accident according toone embodiment.

[0062]FIG. 13 is a flow chart for assessing the contribution ofdefective, obscured, or missing traffic control to liability in a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment.

[0063]FIG. 14 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of driverinattention to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

[0064]FIG. 15 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of driverinexperience to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

[0065]FIG. 16 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of takingan illicit drug to liability in a motor vehicle accident according toone embodiment.

[0066]FIG. 17 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of takinga medication to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

[0067]FIG. 18 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of fatigueto liability in a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment.

[0068]FIG. 19 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of faultyequipment to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

[0069]FIG. 20a is a flow chart for estimating the contribution offollowing too closely to liability in a motor vehicle accident accordingto a first embodiment.

[0070]FIG. 20b is a flow chart for estimating the contribution offollowing too closely to liability in a motor vehicle accident accordingto a second embodiment.

[0071]FIG. 20c is a table for estimating the contribution of followingtoo closely to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to theembodiment illustrated in FIG. 20b.

[0072]FIG. 21 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution ofheadlights being off to liability in a motor vehicle accident accordingto one embodiment.

[0073]FIG. 22 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of highbeams being on to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

[0074]FIG. 23 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of illnessto liability in a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment.

[0075]FIG. 24a is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of animproper lane change to liability in a motor vehicle accident accordingto one embodiment.

[0076]FIG. 24b is a flow chart corresponding to FIG. 24a according toone embodiment.

[0077]FIG. 25 is a logic diagram for estimating the contribution ofimproper parking to liability in a motor vehicle accident according toone embodiment.

[0078]FIG. 26 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution ofimproper signaling to liability in a motor vehicle accident according toone embodiment.

[0079]FIG. 27 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of anobstructed view or glare to liability in a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment.

[0080]FIG. 28 are flow charts for estimating the contribution of theroad condition to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

[0081]FIG. 29 are flow charts for estimating the contribution of theroad character to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

[0082]FIG. 30 are flow charts for estimating the contribution of theroad surface to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

[0083]FIG. 31a is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of speedto liability in a motor vehicle accident according to a firstembodiment.

[0084]FIG. 31b is a flow chart for estimating the maximum safe speed forgiven road and weather conditions according to the first embodiment.

[0085]FIG. 31c is a table illustrating the contribution of speed to amotor vehicle accident according to the first embodiment.

[0086]FIG. 32a is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of speedto liability in a motor vehicle accident according to a secondembodiment.

[0087]FIG. 32b is a flow chart for estimating the maximum safe speed forgiven road and weather conditions according to the second embodiment.

[0088]FIG. 32c is a table illustrating the contribution of speed to amotor vehicle accident according to the second embodiment.

[0089]FIGS. 33a, 33 b, 33 c, 33 d, 33 e, and 33 f are flow charts forestimating the contribution of a sudden stop or swerving to liability ina motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment.

[0090]FIG. 34 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution oftaillights or brake lights being off when they should have been on toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment.

[0091]FIG. 35 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution ofvisibility to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

[0092]FIG. 36 is a flow chart and table for estimating the contributionof disobeyed signs or markings to liability in a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment.

[0093]FIG. 37 illustrates the adjustment of a liability estimate by thefactor influence according to one embodiment.

[0094]FIG. 38 is a screen shot of a window from a Knowledge Acquisitionutility or tuning utility for selecting a roadway configuration/accidenttype combination according to one embodiment.

[0095]FIG. 39 is a screen shot of an editing combination window from aKnowledge Acquisition utility or tuning utility according to oneembodiment.

[0096]FIG. 40 is a screen shot of a window for editing the estimateeffect of a factor according to one embodiment.

[0097]FIG. 41 is a screen shot of a Knowledge Acquisition utility ortuning utility for displaying pairs of impact points according to oneembodiment.

[0098]FIG. 42 is a screen shot of a Claim Data window according to oneembodiment.

[0099]FIG. 43 is a screen shot of a Vehicle Information frame accordingto one embodiment.

[0100]FIG. 44 is a screen shot of an Additional Information frameaccording to one embodiment.

[0101]FIG. 45 is a screen shot of a Parties Information frame accordingto one embodiment.

[0102]FIG. 46 is a screen shot of a Legal Reference window according toone embodiment.

[0103]FIG. 47 is a screen shot of a Right of Way data frame according toone embodiment.

[0104]FIG. 48 is a screen shot of a Traffic Controls data frameaccording to one embodiment.

[0105]FIG. 49 is a screen shot of a Impact Points data frame accordingto one embodiment.

[0106]FIG. 50 is a screen shot of a Discords Report frame according toone embodiment.

[0107]FIG. 51 is a screen shot of a Factors Input frame according to oneembodiment.

[0108]FIG. 52 is a screen shot of a Conflict Identification frameaccording to one embodiment.

[0109]FIG. 53 is a screen shot of a Review frame according to oneembodiment.

[0110]FIG. 54 is a screen shot of a Manual Assessment window accordingto one embodiment.

[0111]FIG. 55 is a screen shot of the Consultation Report windowaccording to one embodiment.

[0112]FIG. 56 depicts a screen shot of a graphical user interface of asystem for estimating liability in a vehicle accident.

[0113]FIG. 57 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a claim dataframe of a graphical user interface.

[0114]FIG. 58 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a claim dataframe of a graphical user interface.

[0115]FIG. 59 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of an Add Partypop-up window of a graphical user interface.

[0116]FIG. 60 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a claim dataframe of a graphical user interface.

[0117]FIG. 61 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of an AccidentInformation frame of a graphical user interface.

[0118]FIG. 62 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of an impact pointsdata frame of a graphical user interface.

[0119]FIGS. 63a-e depict embodiments of an Investigation window of agraphical user interface.

[0120]FIG. 63f depicts an embodiment of a flow chart of questionsgenerated in a graphical user interface.

[0121]FIG. 64 depicts an embodiment of a Resolution window of agraphical user interface.

[0122]FIG. 65a depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a report frameof a graphical user interface.

[0123]FIG. 65b depicts an embodiment of an accident report of agraphical user interface.

[0124]FIG. 65c depicts an embodiment of an accident report of agraphical user interface.

[0125]FIG. 66 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of report frame ofa graphical user interface.

[0126]FIG. 67 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a Legalreference window of a graphical user interface.

[0127]FIG. 68 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment ofSpeed/Time/Distance Calculator window of a graphical user interface.

[0128]FIG. 69 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a DistanceCalculator window of a graphical user interface.

[0129]FIG. 70 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of an AccidentScene window of a graphical user interface.

[0130]FIG. 71 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a CommentsFacility window of a graphical user interface.

[0131]FIG. 72 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method ofestimating liability using the speed, time, and distance of vehicles inan accident.

[0132]FIG. 73 depicts an illustration of an embodiment of anintersection box.

[0133]FIG. 74 depicts an illustration of an embodiment of trajectoriesof vehicles.

[0134]FIGS. 75a-g depict illustrations of the application of speed,time, and distance analysis of vehicles for several accident types.

[0135]FIG. 76a depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forestimating the theoretical paths of vehicles.

[0136]FIG. 76b depicts an illustration of vehicle orientation.

[0137]FIG. 77 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment for estimating thestart point and intended end position of vehicles in an accident.

[0138]FIG. 78 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forestimating the start point and intended end position of vehicles in anaccident.

[0139]FIGS. 79a-b depict illustrations of an accident.

[0140]FIG. 80 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forestimating the start point and intended end position of vehicles in anaccident.

[0141]FIGS. 81a-b depict illustrations of an accident.

[0142]FIG. 82 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forestimating the start point and intended end position of vehicles in anaccident.

[0143]FIGS. 83a-b depict illustrations of an accident.

[0144]FIG. 84 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method ofestimating a mathematical relationship for a trajectory.

[0145]FIG. 85 depicts an ellipse with axes “a” and “b” centered at (c,d).

[0146]FIGS. 86a-c depict portions of ellipses that representtrajectories for various accident types.

[0147]FIGS. 87a-b depict the trajectories of vehicle points.

[0148]FIG. 88 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method ofestimating the time and distance traveled by a vehicle point.

[0149]FIG. 89 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method oflocating a reacting vehicle.

[0150]FIG. 90 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method ofestimating a portion of a trajectory of a reacting vehicle.

[0151]FIG. 91 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forestimating the time for a vehicle to clear a collision area.

[0152]FIGS. 92a-b depict illustrations of an accident.

[0153]FIG. 93 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forestimating the time for a vehicle to clear a collision area.

[0154]FIG. 94 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forestimating a time for a reacting vehicle to avoid an accident.

[0155]FIG. 95 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forassessing the opportunity of a reacting vehicle to avoid an accident.

[0156]FIG. 96 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method of usinga computer system for assessing liability in an accident.

[0157]FIG. 97 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forassessing the opportunity of a reacting vehicle to avoid an accident.

[0158]FIG. 98 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forassessing whether a straight vehicle may avoid an accident.

[0159]FIG. 99 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forassessing whether a turning vehicle may avoid an accident.

[0160]FIG. 100 depicts images of an accident scene on a graphical userinterface.

[0161]FIG. 101 is an illustration of a system and method for copyingclaim data.

[0162]FIG. 102 is an illustration of a system and method for copyingclaim data.

[0163]FIG. 103 depicts a flow chart illustrating accessing of claiminformation.

[0164]FIG. 104 depicts a schematic illustration of a system for creatinga pre-configured claim report.

[0165]FIG. 105 is a schematic illustration of a claim report.

[0166]FIG. 106 is a schematic illustration of a claim report.

[0167]FIG. 107 depicts a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of amethod of estimating liability.

[0168]FIG. 108 illustrates a system for obtaining vehicle data.

[0169]FIG. 109 illustrates vehicle data from a CDR.

[0170]FIG. 110 depicts graphical output of a CDR.

[0171]FIG. 111 depicts graphical output from a CDR.

[0172]FIG. 112 depicts an illustration of an embodiment of assessing aclaim.

[0173] While the invention is susceptible to various modifications andalternative forms, specific embodiments thereof are shown by way ofexample in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. Itshould be understood, however, that the drawings and detaileddescription thereto are not intended to limit the invention to theparticular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is tocover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within thespirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appendedclaims.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SEVERAL EMBODIMENTS

[0174]FIG. 1 illustrates a wide area network (“WAN”) according to oneembodiment. WAN 102 may be a network that spans a relatively largegeographical area. The Internet is an example of WAN 102. WAN 102typically includes a plurality of computer systems that may beinterconnected through one or more networks. Although one particularconfiguration is shown in FIG. 1, WAN 102 may include a variety ofheterogeneous computer systems and networks that may be interconnectedin a variety of ways and that may run a variety of softwareapplications.

[0175] One or more local area networks (“LANs”) 104 may be coupled toWAN 102. LAN 104 may be a network that spans a relatively small area.Typically, LAN 104 may be confined to a single building or group ofbuildings. Each node (i.e., individual computer system or device) on LAN104 may have its own CPU with which it may execute programs, and eachnode may also be able to access data and devices anywhere on LAN 104.LAN 104, thus, may allow many users to share devices (e.g., printers)and data stored on file servers. LAN 104 may be characterized by avariety of types of topology (i.e., the geometric arrangement of deviceson the network), of protocols (i.e., the rules and encodingspecifications for sending data, and whether the network uses apeer-to-peer or client/server architecture), and of media (e.g.,twisted-pair wire, coaxial cables, fiber optic cables, and/or radiowaves).

[0176] Each LAN 104 may include a plurality of interconnected computersystems and optionally one or more other devices such as one or moreworkstations 110 a, one or more personal computers 112 a, one or morelaptop or notebook computer systems 114, one or more server computersystems 116, and one or more network printers 118. As illustrated inFIG. 1, an example LAN 104 may include one of each computer systems 110a, 112 a, 114, and 116, and one printer 118. LAN 104 may be coupled toother computer systems and/or other devices and/or other LANs 104through WAN 102.

[0177] One or more mainframe computer systems 120 may be coupled to WAN102. As shown, mainframe 120 may be coupled to a storage device or fileserver 124 and mainframe terminals 122 a, 122 b, and 122 c. Mainframeterminals 122 a, 122 b, and 122 c may access data stored in the storagedevice or file server 124 coupled to or included in mainframe computersystem 120.

[0178] WAN 102 may also include computer systems connected to WAN 102individually and not through LAN 104 for purposes of example,workstation 110 b and personal computer 112 b. For example, WAN 102 mayinclude computer systems that may be geographically remote and connectedto each other through the Internet.

[0179]FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of computer system 150 that maybe suitable for implementing various embodiments of a system and methodfor assessment of liability in a motor vehicle accident by consideringcharacteristics that describe such an accident combined with expertknowledge collected from experienced claims adjusters. Each computersystem 150 typically includes components such as CPU 152 with anassociated memory medium such as floppy disks 160. The memory medium maystore program instructions for computer programs. The programinstructions may be executable by CPU 152. Computer system 150 mayfurther include a display device such as monitor 154, an alphanumericinput device such as keyboard 156, and a directional input device suchas mouse 158. Computer system 150 may be operable to execute thecomputer programs to implement assessment of liability in a motorvehicle accident by considering characteristics that describe such anaccident combined with expert knowledge collected from experiencedclaims adjusters.

[0180] Computer system 150 may include a memory medium on which computerprograms according to various embodiments may be stored. The term“memory medium” is intended to include an installation medium, e.g., aCD-ROM or floppy disks 160, a computer system memory such as DRAM, SRAM,EDO RAM, Rambus RAM, etc., or a non-volatile memory such as a magneticmedia, e.g., a hard drive or optical storage. The memory medium may alsoinclude other types of memory or combinations thereof. In addition, thememory medium may be located in a first computer which executes theprograms or may be located in a second different computer which connectsto the first computer over a network. In the latter instance, the secondcomputer may provide the program instructions to the first computer forexecution. Also, computer system 150 may take various forms such as apersonal computer system, mainframe computer system, workstation,network appliance, Internet appliance, personal digital assistant(“PDA”), television system or other device. In general, the term“computer system” may refer to any device having a processor thatexecutes instructions from a memory medium.

[0181] The memory medium may store a software program or programsoperable to implement a method for assessment of liability in a motorvehicle accident by considering characteristics that describe such anaccident combined with expert knowledge collected from experiencedclaims adjusters. The software program(s) may be implemented in variousways, including, but not limited to, procedure-based techniques,component-based techniques, and/or object-oriented techniques, amongothers. For example, the software programs may be implemented usingActiveX controls, C++ objects, JavaBeans, Microsoft Foundation Classes(“MFC”), browser-based applications (e.g., Java applets), traditionalprograms, or other technologies or methodologies, as desired. A CPU suchas host CPU 152 executing code and data from the memory medium mayinclude a means for creating and executing the software program orprograms according to the embodiments described herein.

[0182] Various embodiments may also include receiving or storinginstructions and/or data implemented in accordance with the foregoingdescription upon a carrier medium. Suitable carrier media may includestorage media or memory media such as magnetic or optical media, e.g.,disk or CD-ROM, as well as signals such as electrical, electromagnetic,or digital signals, may be conveyed via a communication medium such asnetworks 102 and/or 104 and/or a wireless link.

[0183]FIG. 3 is a flow chart of an embodiment of a liability estimationprocess for vehicle accidents according to one embodiment. As usedherein, the term “liability” generally refers to an amount for which aperson or party is responsible or obligated. In an embodiment, liabilityin an accident may be expressed in a ratio or percentage (e.g., there isa total of 100% liability that can be attributed to persons, parties, orother factors such as weather, etc.). In another embodiment, liabilitymay be expressed as a dollar amount.

[0184] An embodiment may apply to accidents involving many differenttypes of vehicles (e.g., automobiles, light trucks, heavy trucks, motorcycles, school buses, vans, commercial trucks, tractor-trailers, motorhomes, recreational vehicles, commercial buses, fanning relatedvehicles, tractors). It is anticipated that an embodiment may apply toaccidents involving other types of transportation craft such as boatsand airplanes. It is also anticipated that an embodiment may apply toother types of accidents such as premises liability, which may includeslip, trip and fall, dog bite, food poisoning, etc.

[0185] When two or more vehicles are involved in a motor vehicleaccident, typically an estimation of liability is needed in order tosettle a claim that a claimant may make against an insured. As usedherein, the term “claimant” generally refers to a party involved in anaccident that seeks compensation for bodily injury and/or propertydamage from the claims organization of an insurance carrier of anotherparty, the insured, involved in the accident. As used herein, the term“insured” generally refers to a party involved in an accident who holdsan insurance policy with a claims organization of an insurance carrierthat obligates the claims organization of an insurance carrier tocompensate a third party for the portion of the damages suffered by thethird party that was the fault of the insured party in the accident.

[0186] The estimation of liability may be a complicated processinvolving multiple characteristics. Gathering the characteristics maytypically be a task completed by a claims adjuster. As used herein, theterm “claims adjuster” generally refers to an individual employed by aclaims organization of an insurance carrier who assesses the liabilityof each party involved in an accident. When the claims adjuster hascollected some or all of the information available, the claims adjustermay enter the information into a computer system. Examples of data inputscreens that may be suitable for entering accident information into acomputer are shown in FIGS. 42-55.

[0187] The claims adjuster may provide to a computer system a real setof characteristics relating to a real accident. As used herein the term“real characteristics” generally refers to characteristics that describean accident being considered for liability assessment. The computersystem may have access to a memory that contains sets of characteristicsthat correspond to past or theoretical accidents. As used herein, theterm “past accident” generally refers to an accident that occurred inthe past of which certain characteristics may be stored in a memory of acomputer system. As used herein, the term “theoretical accident”generally refers to an accident that might occur. The computer systemmay be configured to provide an estimate of liability for each set ofcharacteristics in the memory.

[0188] The computer system may correlate the real set of characteristicsfrom the real accident to the sets of characteristics in the memory todetermine a set of characteristics that most closely approximates ormatches the real set of characteristics. The computer system may thenuse the estimates of liability for the sets of characteristics in thememory to estimate liability for the real accident. It is anticipatedthat one or more of the sets of characteristics may be used to estimateliability.

[0189]FIG. 3 provides an overview of an embodiment of a liabilityestimation process based on multiple characteristics that may describe avehicle accident. In step 301, a claims adjuster may identify a set ofreal characteristics relating to a real accident. A set of realcharacteristics may include, but are not limited to, roadwayconfiguration, accident type, and impact points of each motor vehicle.Additionally, the real set of characteristics may include identificationof traffic controls at the scene of the accident. Screen shotsillustrating examples of providing each of these characteristics to acomputer system may be found as follows: roadway configurations in FIG.47, accident types in FIG. 47, traffic controls in FIG. 48, and impactpoints in FIG. 49.

[0190] In step 302, the right of way (“ROW”) may be established by acomputer system from one or more of the real characteristics.Additionally, the computer system may ask one or more questions aboutthe real accident to establish the ROW. At least one of the realcharacteristics may include a roadway configuration, an accident type,or a traffic control. FIGS. 7a and 7 b show flow charts that illustratean embodiment of right of way determination. Alternatively, the claimsadjuster may specify the ROW.

[0191] In step 303, a base liability may be estimated from a table ordatabase of characteristics that contain sets of characteristics thatcorrespond to past or theoretical accidents. As used herein, the term“base liability” generally refers to the portion of the liability thatis independent of factors specific to condition of vehicles in theaccident, condition of drivers in the accident, actions of drivers inthe accident, and environmental conditions common to vehicles in theaccident. A computer system may have access to a memory that containssets of characteristics such as roadway configuration, accident type,traffic control, right of way, and impact points of the vehiclesinvolved in the vehicle accidents that correspond to past or theoreticalaccidents. Each of the sets of characteristics for past or theoreticalaccidents may be associated with an estimate of base liability. FIGS. 37to 41 are screen shots of a knowledge acquisition utility and a tuningutility that may be utilized to input base liability information into acomputer system. The utilities may be used to create a database of setsof characteristics that correspond to past or theoretical accidents.

[0192] The computer system may compare the real set of characteristicsestablished or identified in the earlier steps (e.g., roadwayconfiguration, accident type, traffic control, right of way, impactpoints) to the sets of characteristics relating to past or theoreticalaccidents to determine a nearest matching set of characteristics amongthe sets of characteristics relating to past or theoretical accidents.The computer may then determine an estimate of liability for the realaccident based on the estimate of liability associated with the nearestmatching set of characteristics among the sets of characteristicsrelating to past or theoretical accidents. It is anticipated that acomputer system may be configured to provide an estimate of liabilityusing at least one of the sets of characteristics that correspond topast or theoretical accidents.

[0193] In step 304, the claims adjuster may identify to the computersystem one or more factors corresponding to a real accident. The factorsmay include characteristics specific to condition of vehicles in theaccident, condition of drivers in the accident, actions of drivers inthe accident, or environmental conditions common to vehicles in theaccident. The computer system may have access to a memory that containscorresponding factors associated with one or more past or theoreticalaccidents. One or more of the factors associated with past ortheoretical accidents may be associated with an estimate of the effecton liability of the factor. The computer system may compare the factorsassociated with the real accident to factors associated with past ortheoretical accidents to determine one or more nearest matching factors.Estimates of the effect on liability of the determined nearest matchingfactors may be used to estimate the effect on liability of the factorsassociated with the real accident. FIG. 51 is a screen shot showing agraphical user interface for entering conditional factors into acomputer system.

[0194] In some embodiments, the estimate of the effect on liability ofeach factor may be adjustable. For example, the adjustments may be dueto sets of characteristics corresponding to the real accident, thepreference of a claims organization, knowledge of an experienced claimsadjuster, or requirements of a jurisdiction in which the accident tookplace. FIGS. 10a through 36 illustrate several embodiments of estimatesof the effect on liability of several factors which may be associatedwith theoretical accidents. It is anticipated that there are othermethods than those shown in and described in reference to FIGS. 10a to36 to estimate effects on liability due to the contribution of variousfactors.

[0195] In step 305, any necessary adjustments to the base liabilityestimated in step 303 due to contributions from factors estimated in 304may be made. One example of a necessary adjustment may be an AbsoluteLiability Value. As used herein, the term “Absolute Liability Value”(“ALV”) is generally defined as a factor that makes a significantcontribution to liability such as negating the effect of other factorsor characteristics associated with the accident. An ALV may also bedefined as a factor that may adjust the liability beyond the lower andupper bounds defined for the liability. However, an ALV may not alwaysshift liability to the other party. For example, an ALV might simplyabsolve one party of liability and explain the accident as beingunavoidable. In such a situation, the contribution of various factorsand characteristics may be ignored and an ALV may be assigned. Forexample, if a person had a sudden, unforeseen heart attack that causedan accident, the base liability might be determined to be 75 percent,but the final liability may be set via an ALV at 0 percent because theaccident was probably unavoidable.

[0196] In step 306, all of the previously entered information may betaken into account and processed. Reference to expert knowledgedatabases, and other static information (such as jurisdictionalinformation) may be made in calculating a range of liability. A range ofliability may be more suitable than a single value in negotiationsbetween parties regarding fault.

[0197]FIG. 4 illustrates graphical representations of various differentaccident types involving motor vehicles according to one embodiment. Thearrows represent the paths of motor vehicle A and motor vehicle B at ornear the time of the accident. Solid lines with no arrows represent theedge of a roadway. Dashed lines represent lanes. The user may select anaccident type that corresponds to the real vehicle accident as shown inthe screen shot in FIG. 47. As used herein, the term “user” generallyrefers to a claims adjuster or another individual employed by a claimsorganization. Accident types graphically represented in FIG. 4 mayinclude: (1) a rear ender, (2) a left turn crossing traffic, (3) a leftturn across traffic, (4) a left turn entering traffic, (5) a right turnentering traffic, (6) dual turns to same lane, (7) concurrent leftturns, (8) a U-turn, (9) a parked vehicle merging into traffic fromright, (10) a parked vehicle merging into traffic from left (e.g. on aone way street), (11) a merge from the left, (12) a merge from theright, (13) concurrent merges to a single lane, (14) a collision with aparked vehicle, (15) a collision while backing, (16) a head on, and (17)a straight cross traffic collision. Additionally, in some embodiments, aright turn across traffic accident type (not shown) may be represented.

[0198]FIG. 5 illustrates graphical representations of various differentroadway configurations according to one embodiment. The user may selectone of the roadway configurations that correspond to a real vehicleaccident as shown in the screen shot in FIG. 47. Roadway configurationsgraphically represented in FIG. 5 may include: (A) a two or more laneroad (including a divided road with a median that may be crossed), wherethe solid lines are the roadway and the space between is the median; (B)a four-way intersection with the lines representing the crossingroadways; (C) a T-angle intersection (the T-angle that may vary), wherethe solid lines are the roadway and where the dashed line represents thevariation of the angle of the intersection; (D) a merging of one roadwayinto another with no turns and in one direction with the arrows showingthe direction of the vehicles; (E) a curve with the lines showing theroadway; (F) a parking lot with two-way traffic where the arrows showthe direction of the vehicles, the vertical lines represent the boundaryof the parking lot, and the spaces between the horizontal linesrepresent the parking spaces; (G) a parking lot with one way trafficwhere the arrow shows the direction of the vehicles, the vertical linesrepresent the boundary of the parking lot, and the spaces between thediagonal lines represent the parking spaces; (H) a center turn lane withthe bold lines representing the boundary of the roadway, the thin linesmarking the boundary between the driving lanes and the center turn lane,and the arrows representing the direction of the center lane turns; (I)a two or more lane road divided by a physical barrier with the thickercenter line representing the physical barrier and the thinner linesrepresenting the outer boundaries of the roadway.

[0199] Alternatively, the roadway configurations of the parking lots,(F) and (G), may be represented by a single diagram, (FG), shown in FIG.5. (FG) is the same as (F), except that the parking spaces on the rightof the diagram are formed by diagonal lines. In an embodiment, (FG) maybe used to represent a parking lot of any configuration.

[0200]FIG. 6 is a matrix illustrating the applicable roadwayconfiguration/accident type combinations in liability estimationaccording to one embodiment. Accident types, (1) to (17) from FIG. 4,are listed on the vertical axis. Roadway configurations, (A) to (I) fromFIG. 5, are listed on the horizontal axis. The alternativerepresentation of the parking lots (F) and (G), (FG) is also included onthe horizontal axis.

[0201] Experienced claims adjusters may consider combinations labeled“N” to be implausible accident scenarios and, therefore, not significantin liability assessment of motor vehicle accidents. Thus, combinationslabeled “Y” may be considered a set of theoretical accident scenarios.FIG. 38 is a screen shot of a Knowledge Acquisition Utility, which showsa matrix of roadway configuration/accident types similar to FIG. 6. InFIG. 38, the elements of the matrix labeled with a “—” indicateimplausible combinations. In the embodiment of FIG. 38, the implausiblecombinations are a subset of the combinations labeled with an “N” inFIG. 6 because the knowledge acquisition utility allows the user toconsider some implausible combinations. An example of a combinationmarked as implausible in both FIGS. 6 and 38 is D2, left turn crossingtraffic on a merge with no turns in one direction. An example of acombination that may be considered implausible in FIG. 6, but may beallowed for consideration in FIG. 38 is I16, a head on collision on a 2or more lane road divided by a physical barrier.

[0202]FIGS. 7a and 7 b depict flow charts for determining whethervehicle A or vehicle B has the right of way in traffic according to oneembodiment. As used herein, the term “right of way” generally refers tothe right of a vehicle to take precedence in traffic. The determinationof right of way may require identification of one or more of thecharacteristics of the real accident (e.g., the roadway configuration,accident type, traffic control, or jurisdiction). Additionally,determining the right of way may require answering one or more questionsconcerning the accident. Alternatively, in some embodiments, the rightof way may be specified by the user. FIG. 7b includes flow charts ofdeterminations that appear in the flow chart in FIG. 7a. In FIG. 7b, theIntersection flow chart identifies the accident types that involveintersections. The Perpendicular Directions flow chart identifies theaccident types that involve vehicles approaching from perpendiculardirections. In Adjuster Preference, the claims adjuster may eitherassign the right of way to vehicle A or B, or defer to the insurancecarrier's or claims organization's preference.

[0203] As shown by decision point 501 in FIG. 7a, the determination ofthe right of way may depend on the accident types illustrated in FIG. 4.The right of way may be determined from the accident type alone in somecases. For example, in accident types 9 and 10, merge of a parkedvehicle, the vehicle already in traffic may have the right of way.Likewise, in accident types 11 and 12, the merge of a moving vehicle,the vehicle already in the lane may have the right of way. Thesedeterminations are shown by step 503 in which vehicle A in accident typediagrams 9, 10, 11 and 12 in FIG. 4 has the right of way. Additionally,as depicted in step 505, vehicle A may be determined to have the rightof way if vehicle A is parked (accident type 14) or vehicle B is backingup (accident type 15).

[0204] For accident type 1, decision point 507 shows that the right ofway may depend on which vehicle was ahead in the rear-ender. If vehicleB was ahead (as depicted in FIG. 4), step 511 shows that B may have theright of way. If vehicle A was ahead, step 509 shows that A may have theright of way. Alternatively, if it is unknown which vehicle was ahead(e.g., due to the circumstances or severity of the accident), step 513indicates that the right of way may be undetermined. For an undeterminedright of way the base liability of each vehicle may be set at 50%.

[0205] As shown in FIG. 7a, for accident types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13,16, and 17, the first step 515 is the intersection decision point, whichis determination of whether the accident occurred at an intersection.The intersection flow chart is illustrated in FIG. 7b. Decision point582 indicates that the presence of an intersection may be found from theaccident type. If the accident type is 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 17, step583 indicates that there may be an intersection. If the accident type is1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16, step 584 indicates an intersectionmay not be present. Alternately, in some embodiments, the presence of anintersection may be determined from roadway configuration informationprovided by the user. For example, roadway configurations A, E, F, G, Iand FG may indicate that in intersection may not be present. Roadwayconfigurations B, C, D, and H may indicate that an intersection may bepresent.

[0206]FIG. 7a shows that if there is no intersection, the next step isdecision point 519. Decision point 519 is the determination of whichvehicle left the lane it was in. As shown by steps 521 and 523, thevehicle that remained in the lane it was in may have the right of way.Alternatively, if both vehicles left their lanes, step 525 indicatesthat the right of way may be undetermined. In this case, the baseliability may be assessed at 50% for each vehicle.

[0207]FIG. 7a shows that when there is an intersection, the next step isdecision point 517 which is a determination of whether there is atraffic control for either vehicle A or B. If not, decision point 529indicates that the right of way may depend on which vehicle left thelane it was in. Steps 531, 533, and 535 are analogous to steps 521, 523,and 525. However, if neither vehicle left the lane it was in, step 525indicates that the vehicle that controls the intersection may have theright of way as shown by flow chart 537. The vehicle that controls theintersection may be determined by flow chart 537 shown in FIG. 7b.Decision point 589 in FIG. 7b is the first step in determining whocontrols the intersection. Decision point 589 asks which vehicle arrivedat the intersection first. As shown by steps 590 and 591, the vehiclethat arrived first at an intersection may control it. If neither vehiclearrived first, decision point 592 asks which vehicle is to the right.Steps 593 and 594 show that the vehicle to the right may control theintersection.

[0208] As illustrated in FIG. 7a, if the answer to decision point 517 isyes, then decision point 527 is next which asks the type of trafficcontrol. Decision point 539, which is reached if the traffic control isa sign, asks if the sign is obscured or down. If the sign is obscured ordown, step 543 shows that right of way may be determined by theadjuster. Adjuster determination is shown by the flow chart in FIG. 7b.Decision point 585 in FIG. 7b is the adjuster's answer for whichvehicle, A or B, has the right of way, which is shown as steps 586 and587. If the adjuster does not have an answer, then the right of way maybe the carrier's preference as shown by step 588.

[0209] However, if the answer to decision point 539 is no, decisionpoint 545 asks which vehicle had a non-yielding traffic control. Step547 shows that if A had the non-yielding traffic control, then B mayhave the right of way. Step 549 shows that if B had the non-yieldingtraffic control, then A may have the right of way. Step 551 applies ifneither A nor B has the non-yielding traffic control. The right of waymay be determined by the vehicle that controls the intersection, whichmay be determined by the flow chart shown in FIG. 7b.

[0210] Alternatively, if the answer to decision point 527 is a trafficlight, then decision point 541 asks if the light was out for bothvehicles. If the light was out for both, then right of way may bedetermined by who controls the intersection, which is shown in FIG. 7b.If the answer to decision point 541 is no, decision point 555 asks ifthe light was out for only one vehicle. If the light was out for onlyone vehicle, then right of way may be found from adjuster determination,which is given by the flow chart in FIG. 7b. However, if the answer todecision point 555 is no, decision point 559 is reached. Decision point559 asks which vehicle has a non-yielding traffic control. As step 561shows, if A has the non-yielding traffic control and B does not, then Bmay have the right of way. As step 563 shows, if B has the non-yieldingtraffic control and A does not, then A may have the right of way. Ifneither A nor B has the non-yielding traffic control, then decisionpoint 565 is reached, which inquires whether both had a red light. Ifthe answer to decision point 565 is yes, the right of way may beundetermined, as shown in step 567. In this case, the base liability maybe assessed at 50% for each vehicle. If the answer to decision point 565is no, then right of way may be determined by the vehicle that controlsthe intersection. The vehicle that controls the intersection may bedetermined by the flow chart shown in FIG. 7b. If both vehicles indecision point 559 have non-yielding traffic controls, then decisionpoint 571 is reached. Decision point 571 asks whether the vehicles wereapproaching in perpendicular directions, which may be determined fromthe flow chart in FIG. 7b. As shown by decision point 595 in FIG. 7b,whether the vehicles were approaching in perpendicular directions may bedetermined from the accident types shown in FIG. 4. Step 596 shows thatthe answer is yes if the accident type is 3, 4, 5, or 17. Step 597 showsthat the answer is no if the accident type is 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, or 16. If the vehicles were approaching in perpendiculardirections, then right of way may be determined by the adjuster.Adjuster determination may be given by the flow chart in FIG. 7b. If thevehicles were not approaching in a perpendicular direction, thendecision point 529 shows that the right of way again may depend on whichvehicle left the lane it was in. Steps 577, 579, and 581 are analogousto steps 521, 523, and 525.

[0211] An example of a screen shot of user input of a traffic control isshown in FIG. 48. An example of a screen shot of user input of thejurisdiction is shown in FIG. 42. Jurisdiction may include each of thefifty states of the United States and territories of the United States.In another embodiment, jurisdiction may include any governmental entitywith traffic laws, such as a foreign country. The vehicle that does nothave the right of way may generally be referred to as the “tortfeasor”(“TF”) and the vehicle that has the right of way may generally bereferred to as the “other party” (“OP”). For the case of an undeterminedright of way, both parties may be considered the “other party” whendetermining the effect of one or more factors on the liability.

[0212] In an embodiment, a traffic control may be considered as“yielding” or “nonyielding.” As used herein, the term “yielding trafficcontrol” generally refers to a traffic control that informs a driverthat he or she must give way (or stop) for other traffic. As usedherein, the term “nonyielding traffic control” generally refers to atraffic control that informs the driver that he or she may proceed.Traffic controls may be further divided into three categories: pure,other explicit controlling devices, and markings and signs. Yieldingpure traffic controls may include, but are not limited to, no trafficcontrol present, a red light, a stop sign, a yield sign, a flashing redlight, or a police officer signaling stop. Nonyielding pure trafficcontrols may include, but are not limited to, a yellow light, a greenlight, a green arrow left, a green arrow right, a flashing yellow light,or a police officer signaling proceed.

[0213] Yielding other explicit controlling devices may include acrossing guard signaling stop, a flagger signaling stop, another personsignaling stop, and a school bus loading or unloading. Nonyielding otherexplicit controlling devices may include a crossing guard signalingproceed, a flagger signaling proceed, or another person signalingproceed. In some embodiments, emergency vehicle may also be yieldingtraffic controls depending upon the jurisdiction.

[0214] Whether a traffic control in the pure category overrides aselection in the other explicit controlling devices category may dependupon the jurisdiction. For example, whether a vehicle with a green lightmust yield to an approaching emergency vehicle may vary depending on thejurisdiction.

[0215] In one embodiment, a user may only select one traffic controlfrom each category. The user may not have to select a traffic controlfrom more than one category. If a user does select more than one, thenthe user may select which category should be considered as the governingcontrol. A secondary traffic control may be listed in a report asinformational only.

[0216] Markings and signs such as lane markings may also be trafficcontrols. In some embodiments, the presence of markings or signs may benoted for informational purposes. For example the presence of adisobeyed marking may be noted for use as a negotiation or talking pointrather than being used to estimate liability or right of way. Themarkings and signs may include, but are not limited to: a one way signor marking, a do not enter sign or marking, a no passing sign ormarking, a no parking zone sign or marking, a straight only sign ormarking, a left turn only sign or marking, a right turn only sign ormarking, no U turn sign or marking, a no right turn on red sign, conesand/or barricades, a solid yellow line, a solid white line, or a nostopping sign or marking.

[0217]FIG. 8a is an illustration of a graphical representation of theimpact points on a vehicle according to one embodiment. FIG. 8a is agraphical representation of a vehicle that is divided into twelvesections: 801-right front corner, 802-right front fender, 803-rightmiddle, 804-right rear quarter-panel, 805-right rear corner, 806-rearmiddle, 807-left rear corner, 808-left rear quarter-panel, 809-leftmiddle, 810-left front fender, 811-left front corner, and 812-frontmiddle. Each of the labeled sections may correspond to a possible pointof impact in a motor vehicle accident.

[0218]FIG. 8b is a table showing impact groups for combinations ofroadway configuration and accident type according to one embodiment. Agiven roadway configuration/accident type combination may have a numberof possible impact groups. As used herein, the term “impact group”generally refers to a collection of pairs of impact points for a past ortheoretical accidents. A pair of impact points may include the impactpoint for each of two vehicles involved in an accident. In someembodiments, each pair of impact points may be associated with sets ofliability estimate values. One set of values may correspond to vehicle Ahaving the right of way and the other set of values to vehicle B havingthe right of way. Each set of values may include a value of baseliability, a lower bound of liability, and an upper bound of liabilityfor each vehicle. Alternately, in some embodiments, each impact groupmay be associated with sets of values corresponding to base liabilityvalues. It is anticipated that there may be various ways to arrangeimpact points in impact groups.

[0219] For example, as shown in FIG. 8b, impact points associated withthe roadway configuration/accident type combination 2B (a four-wayintersection with vehicle A from top turning left and B from bottomgoing straight), may be grouped into four impact groups. A first impactgroup may include three pairs of impact points: A811B809, A811B810, andA810B808. A and B refer to motor vehicle A and motor vehicle B,respectively, and the numbers refer to points on the impact pointdiagram in FIG. 8a. For example, the impact point pair, A811B809,corresponds to vehicle A with an impact point on the left front fender(811) and vehicle B with an impact point on the left middle (809).

[0220] In an embodiment, each of the pairs of impact points in a givenimpact group may have the same base liability and lower and upper boundof liability. The estimation of the base liability values, lower andupper bounds of liabilities, and the impact groups may be estimated byexpert claims adjusters through a process called knowledge acquisition.

[0221] In an embodiment, the base liability and the bounds of theliability for two vehicles involved in an accident may be estimated fora real accident by first specifying the roadway configuration (as shownin FIG. 5), accident type (as shown in FIG. 4), and pair of impactpoints (as shown in FIG. 8a) of vehicles A and B for the real accident.The vehicle that had the right of way may be determined as shown inFIGS. 7a and 7 b. A table, like the one shown in FIG. 8b, may besearched for the impact group corresponding to the given roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination that contains the specified pairof impact points that correspond to a past or theoretical accident. Oncethe roadway configuration/accident type combination and impact group ofthe past or theoretical accident are known, the base liability andbounds may be extracted from a table in a database that lists the baseliabilities and bounds for each impact group for all applicable roadwayconfiguration/accident type combinations.

[0222]FIG. 9a illustrates an embodiment of a method of estimating theeffect of one or more factors on the liability. Factor adjustments maybe considered for each vehicle based on data specific to condition ofvehicles in the accident, condition of drivers in the accident, actionsof drivers in the accident, or environmental conditions common tovehicles in the accident. Each factor may have an associated penaltyvalue that may correspond to an amount that an experienced claimsadjuster may add to the base liability when this factor is presentalone. A user may identify the presence of factors in a real accidentand provide a list of factors to the computer system.

[0223] In an embodiment, factors related to the condition of vehicles inthe accident may include the presence of faulty equipment. As usedherein, the term “faulty equipment” generally refers to any vehicleequipment malfunction that causes an action (e.g., stuck acceleratorcauses unwanted acceleration), prohibits the operator from taking action(e.g., failed braking system prevents stopping), or fails to perform anaction (e.g., failed brake lights do not warn other drivers of braking).In an embodiment, factors related to environmental conditions common tothe vehicle may include, but are not limited to, presence of aconstruction zone, an obstructed view or glare, a road condition, a roadcharacter, a road surface, a defective traffic control, weather orvisibility. In an embodiment, the factors related to a driver'scondition may include, but are not limited to, consumption of alcohol,consumption of illicit drugs, consumption of medications, driverinattention, lack of required corrective lenses, driver inexperience,driver fatigue, or driver illness. In an embodiment, factors related toa driver's actions may include, but are not limited to, following tooclosely, driving with headlights off, driving at an unsafe speed, asudden stop or swerve, driving with taillights brake lights off, unsafebacking, failure to take evasive action, driving with high beams on, animproper lane change, improper parking, or improper signaling.

[0224]FIG. 9a is an illustration of one embodiment for estimating theeffect on liability of one or more factors. The decision to apply aparticular factor in a given situation may be made by an experiencedclaims adjuster. In alternate embodiments, the factor may be applied bya computer system based on input provided by a claims adjuster. Thecomputer system may ask the claims adjuster one or more questionsregarding the accident. Based on answers provided by the claimsadjuster, the computer system may determine that one or more factorsapply.

[0225] In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 9a, the effect of a factor onthe liability may be adjusted by a situational weight for each roadwayconfiguration/accident type and vehicle. A situational weight may havefour levels: N/A (factor not applicable), low, normal, and high. Anexperienced claims adjuster may determine an appropriate situationalweight to apply. In an alternate embodiment, a computer system may beconfigured to determine an appropriate situational weight based oninformation provided by a claims adjuster. For example, in a rear-ender,a factor related to the consumption of alcohol (e.g., being drunk) maybe considered more important than it is in other types of accidents.Therefore, the situational weight may be “high” for the rear vehicle.However, whether the driver of the lead vehicle has consumed alcohol maybe irrelevant. Thus, a situational weight of “N/A” may be assigned tothe factor. Each level of the situational weight may be assigned apercentage. For example, the situational weight may be 50 per cent forlow and 150 per cent for high.

[0226] In the example depicted in FIG. 9a, base liability values mayhave already been determined from a table of base liabilities of past ortheoretical accidents, as was described in reference to FIG. 8b. Forexample, the insurance carrier may have determined that the baseliability for the insured was 80%, with a lower bound of 50% and anupper bound of 100%. Consequently, base liability for the claimant maybe 20%.

[0227] In an embodiment, the levels of the situational weights (e.g.,N/A, low, normal, and high) may be represented as percent weights (e.g.,0%, 50%, 100%, and 150%, respectively). In some embodiments, for a givenfactor, the penalty value, the situational weight, the percent weight,and whether or not the factor may apply may be specified by the user. Ifthe factor applies, the adjusted penalty may be estimated by multiplyingthe penalty value by the percent weight associated with the determinedsituational weight. For example, the adjusted penalty of 22.5% foralcohol for the insured may be estimated by multiplying the penalty(e.g., 15%) by the percent weight (e.g., 150%) associated with thedetermined situational weight (e.g., “high”). In an embodiment, answersto questions in the flow charts may be used to determine whether asituational weight associated with a factor is low, medium, high, or notapplicable.

[0228] In other embodiments, the penalty, and/or situational weight maynot be determined directly by a user. In such an embodiment, the penaltyand/or situational weight may be determined from the answers to a seriesof questions. The questions may be specific to one party (e.g., thetortfeasor or other party). The questions may relate to roadwayconfiguration, accident type, and/or other characteristics of theaccident. FIGS. 10a to 36 are flow charts that depict methods ofdetermining penalties values associated with various factors. In theFIGS. 10a to 36, the penalty values may be represented in certain of theflow chart terminuses as percentage values. In certain flow charts, thepenalty values may be represented by the terms “low,” “medium,” or“high.” These terms may represent variables that correspond to penaltyvalues. For example, the “low” term may correspond to a penalty value of10%, the “medium” term may correspond to a penalty value of 20%, and the“high” term may correspond to a penalty value of 30%. In someembodiments, the penalty values associated with each of these terms maybe configurable by the claims organization. In some embodiments, all ofthe penalty values determined by methods such as those depicted in FIGS.10a through 36 may be configurable by the claims organization.

[0229] In some cases, a factor may be determined to be a talking point(“TP”). As used herein, the term “talking point” generally refers to afactor that may not affect liability and may be informational onlybecause the liability may be inherent in the base liability for theroadway configuration/accident type combination and the right of way. Incertain embodiments, a computer system may gather information related toan accident and note for the user talking points identified from theinformation. Talking points may be useful if two or more parties mustcome to a negotiated agreement regarding the assessment of liabilityfrom the accident. A factor may also be determined to be an ALV.

[0230] In some embodiments, the situational weight for a factor may notbe controlled directly by the user. In such embodiments, a factorranking may be provided by the user to indirectly adjust the effect of afactor. For example, the user may rank factors on a scale of 0 to 5. Theranking factor may take into account the importance that a given factorhas to a claims organization when it is not related to thecharacteristics of a particular accident. A knowledge acquisitionutility may be provided via a computer system. The knowledge acquisitionutility may ask the user a series of questions related to one or morefactors, and determine a ranking factor from answers provided by theuser. Alternately, the user may be presented directly with a list orfactors and may be asked to rank each factor on a provided scale. Insuch embodiments, factors ranked as having a greater importance may beprovided a situational weight. Such a method may be used in someembodiments to determine penalty values associated with one or morefactors.

[0231] One method of applying the factor ranking to situational weightsmay be to assign a weight in terms of a percentage value between 0 and100%. A rank of 0 may correspond to 0% and a rank of 5 may correspond to100%. Ranks between 0 and 5 may be assigned values in 20% increments. Ifa value is assigned to the situational weight for a given factor, thesituational weight may be adjusted by the ranking factor. For example,if the system estimates that high beams have a situational weight of 10percent, and the claims organization gave a rank of 4 to high beams, theadjusted situational weight may be 8 percent.

[0232] As used herein, the term “penalty value” generally indicates thata portion of liability that would otherwise be assessed to a first partyis not assessed to the first party. In some cases, that portion of theliability may be shifted to a second party, where the second party maybe another driver involved in the accident. In other cases, theliability may be shifted to a third party, where the third party was nota driver involved in the accident. For example, the third party may bean owner of an animal that contributed to the accident.

[0233] Adjusting the base liability based on factors may be done in anumber of ways. For example, a direct shift may be used. In anembodiment, a portion of the base liability assessed to the first partymay be shifted to the second party. In such a case, a penalty factor maybe a percentage of the liability to shift. For example, if the first andsecond party would each be assessed with 50% of the liability for theaccident. A penalty value of 80% for the second party means that thefirst party is assessed with 10% of the liability and the second partyis assessed with 90% of the liability.

[0234] In some embodiments, a debit/credit system may be used. In suchembodiments, an effect on liability for a particular factor may bedetermined. One half of the determined penalty value may then be addedto a first party, and the other half subtracted from the second party.After all of the factors may have been considered, the penalty valuesfor each party may be summed and applied to the base liability. Forexample, FIGS. 9b and 9 c depict examples of applying a debit/creditsystem for assessing the effect of several factors on the liability. Inthe example of FIG. 9b, Factors 1 and 2 apply to the first party, havingpenalty values of 20% (i.e., 10%+10%) and 30% (i.e., 15%+15%),respectively. Additionally, Factor 3 applies to the second party, havinga penalty value of 10%. Therefore, a total of 20% may be added to thebase liability of the first party, leaving a 70% liability assessmentfor the first party. The second party may receive a 30% liabilityassessment as a result of 20% being subtracted from the base liabilityof the second party. In some embodiments, effects on liability adjustthe base liability by multiplying the sum of the effects on liabilitytimes the base liability. For example, using the same numbers as in FIG.9c, but multiplying the sum by the base liability the first and secondparties may be assessed with 60% and 40%, respectively. In addition tothe calculation demonstrated in FIGS. 9b and 9 c, one or moresituational weights may be used to adjust the penalty values associatedwith each factor before the penalty values are assessed to the parties.

[0235]FIGS. 10a and 10 b depict flow charts of alternate embodiments ofmethods for estimating the effect on liability of an alcohol factor. Inan embodiment, the alcohol factor may apply to either the tortfeasor orthe other party for all accident types.

[0236] If at decision point 1001 in FIG. 10a, it is determined thatalcohol was not consumed prior to the accident, then the alcohol factormay not be applicable as shown by step 1002. If alcohol was consumedprior to the accident, the next step, shown by decision point 1003, maybe to determine if the alcohol usage contributed to the accident. Ifnot, then the alcohol factor may not be applicable as shown by step1004. If it is determined that alcohol usage did contribute to theaccident, information of basic facts may be gathered as shown by step1005. Basic information may include blood alcohol content, whether ornot a sobriety test was given, and whether or not the accident involveda fatality. Optional information may also be gathered, as shown by step1007, such as the type and amount of alcohol consumed, where the alcoholwas served and by whom, and the weight of the user.

[0237] If the accident involved a fatality, as determined at decisionpoint 1009 shown in FIG. 10a, “warrants further discussion” may be addedto the accident report, as shown in step 1011. However, whether or notthere was a fatality involved in the accident, the next decision point1013 may be to determine if the user was cited for impairment. If theuser was cited for impairment, a talking point may be reached, as shownby step 1015. If the user was not cited for impairment, the nextdecision point 1017 may be to determine if there was any indication ofimpairment. If there was no indication of impairment, the alcohol factormay not be applicable as shown by step 1019. If there was any indicationof impairment, the next step may be to determine what the indication wasbased on at decision point 1021. A blood alcohol content may indicate alevel of impairment. Statements or other evidence may also provide someindication of impairment, which would be described as shown by step1023. After it is determined what the indication of impairment was basedon, a talking point may be reached as shown by step 1025.

[0238] An alternate method of determining an effect on liability ofalcohol is depicted in FIG. 10b. At step 1051, the method may includedetermining if alcohol was consumed by a driver of a vehicle involved inthe accident prior to the accident. If it is determined that no alcoholwas consumed prior to the accident, the factor may not apply, as shownby step 1052. If alcohol was consumed by a driver of a vehicle involvedin the accident, step 1053 may determine whether the driver was citedfor impairment. In certain embodiments, prior to step 1053, the methodmay also include a step to determine if the alcohol consumptioncontributed to the accident. If it is determined that the driver wascited for impairment, step 1054 may be reached and an ALV may assign100% of the liability to the driver cited for impairment. If the driverwas not cited for impairment, decision point 1055 may determine if otherindications of impairment were present. If no indications of impairmentwere present, a “high” penalty value may be assessed to the driver thathad consumed alcohol, as depicted in step 1056. If indications ofimpairment were present, the method may determine the nature of theindications of impairment at step 1057. Indications of impairment basedon blood alcohol content (step 1058), or statements or other evidence(step 1059) may result in a penalty value of 70% of the liability to theimpaired driver.

[0239]FIG. 11 is a flow chart illustrating a method for estimating theeffect on liability of a factor that accounts for the presence of aconstruction zone on a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment. The construction zone factor may be applied to a tortfeasorand/or other party for any accident type.

[0240] If a motor vehicle accident occurred in a construction zone wherea third party, other than the driver(s) or vehicle(s) involved in theaccident may be involved, as determined at decision point 1101 in FIG.11, then a talking point may be reached at step 1103,. If the accidentdid not occur in a construction zone, then the factor may not beapplicable in estimating liability, as shown by step 1105.

[0241]FIG. 12 is a flow chart for estimating the effect on liability ofa factor that accounts for corrective lenses in a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. The corrective lenses factor may be appliedto a tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type.

[0242] If it is determined at decision point 1201 in FIG. 12 that adriver involved in a motor vehicle accident did not require correctivelenses, then the factor may not be applicable as shown by step 1203. Ifcorrective lenses were required, the next decision point 1205 may be todetermine whether they were worn at the time of the accident. If thecorrective lenses were worn at the time of the accident, the factor maynot be applicable in estimating liability, as shown by step 1207. Ifrequired corrective lenses were not worn by the driver at the time ofthe accident, a talking point may be reached as shown by step 1209.

[0243]FIG. 13 is a flow chart for estimating the effect on liability ofa factor that accounts for a defective, obscured, or missing trafficcontrol on a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. Thetraffic control may be missing or completely obscured. A defective lightmay be one that may not be lit for either party (e.g., not lit for TF ornot lit for OP). The traffic control factor may be applied to atortfeasor and/or other party for accident types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,16, and 17.

[0244] If at decision point 1301 shown in FIG. 13, the accident type wasdetermined to be 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15, then the trafficcontrol factor may not be applicable to estimating liability, as shownby step 1303. For accident types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, and 17, adecision point shown by step 1305 may be reached to determine if anobscured, defective, or missing traffic control contributed to theaccident. If an obscured, defective, or missing traffic control did notcontribute to the accident, then the factor may not applicable forestimating liability, as shown in step 1309.

[0245] If it is determined that an obscured, defective, or missingtraffic control contributed to the accident, then decision point 1307may be reached to determine if a driver was familiar with the accidentlocation. If the answer is yes, then a talking point may be reached asshown by step 1311. If the answer is no, the next decision point 1313may be whether or not the intersection appeared to be an uncontrolledintersection. If not, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to theparty in question, as shown in step 1317. If the intersection appearedto be a controlled intersection, an ALV of 10% may be assessed to theparty in question.

[0246]FIG. 14 is a flow chart for estimating the effect on liability ofa factor that accounts for the contribution of driver inattention to amotor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. The driverinattention factor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party forany accident type.

[0247] As shown by decision point 1401 in FIG. 14, if the driver failedto maintain a proper lookout (e.g., not looking at the road ahead), thena “low” penalty value may be assessed against the driver, as shown instep 1405. If the driver maintained a proper lookout, the step 1403 maybe reached. Step 1403 may determine if the driver was distracted priorto the accident (e.g., by a conversation, a cell phone, shaving, etc.).If the driver was distracted, then a “low” penalty value may be assessedto the driver at step 1406. If the driver was not distracted then, asstep 1404 indicates, the factor may be not applicable for the driver.

[0248]FIG. 15 is a flow chart for estimating the effect on liability ofa factor that accounts for the contribution of driver inexperience to amotor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. The driverinexperience factor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other partyfor any accident type.

[0249] As shown by decision point 1501 in FIG. 15, the duration of timethe driver has been legally driving may be a determining factor. If thedriver has been driving for two years or less, then the factor may be atalking point as shown by step 1503. If the driver has been driving formore than two years, then the driver inexperience factor may not beapplicable as shown by step 1505. In some embodiments, decision point1501 may be directed to how long a driver has been legally driving aparticular class of vehicle that was involved in the accident. Forexample, if the driver was driving a motorcycle at the time of theaccident, decision point 1501 may determine how long the driver has beenlegally driving motorcycles.

[0250]FIG. 16 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of taking an illicit drug to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The illicit drug factormay be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type.As used herein, the term “illicit drug” generally refers to an illegal,or unlawfully used drug. For example, an unlawfully used drug mayinclude a prescription drug taken in a fashion other than the prescribedmanner or a prescription drug taken by a person to whom it has not beenprescribed.

[0251] Decision point 1601 in FIG. 16 may determine if an illicit drugwas consumed prior to the accident. If no illicit drug was taken beforethe accident, the illicit drug factor may be not applicable, as shown instep 1603. If an illicit drug was taken prior to the accident, a “low”penalty value may be assessed to the party that took the illicit drug,as shown in step 1605.

[0252] In other embodiments, factors accounting for the consumption ofillicit drugs and the consumption of alcohol may be treatedsimultaneously through an alcohol factor flow chart as depicted in FIGS.10a and 10 b.

[0253]FIG. 17 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of an affirmative action of taking amedication to a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. Themedication factor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party forany accident type. In an embodiment, the medication factor may notinclude failing to take required medicine since the illness factor maytake this into account. As used herein, the term “medication” generallyrefers to either a prescription drug, or an over-the-counter drug.Additionally, in some embodiments, a medication may include any legalchemical substance that may be consumed by an individual for medicalreasons (e.g., herbs, or other nontraditional medications).

[0254] At decision point 1701 in FIG. 17, it is determined whether amedication was taken prior to the accident. If not, as shown by step1703, then the medication factor may not be applicable. If a medicationwas taken prior to the accident, then the next decision point 1705 maydetermine if the medication had an affect on the ability to drive. Ifnot, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step 1707.

[0255] If the medication affected the ability to drive, it may then bedetermined if the party was aware of this effect, as shown by decisionpoint 1709. If the party was aware of the effect of the medication onthe ability to drive, then a “low” penalty value may be assessed for themedication factor, as shown by step 1711. If the party was not aware ofthe effect of the medication on the ability to drive, then decisionpoint 1713 may ask if the medication had appropriate warnings andlabels. If there were not proper warnings or labels on the medication,then the factor may be a talking point as shown by step 1715. In someembodiments, if there were not proper warnings or labels on themedication, step 1715 may indicate that a portion of the liability maybe attributed to a third-party (e.g., the medication vendor, ormanufacturer). If the medication was properly labeled, then a “low”penalty value may be assessed to the party as shown by step 1717.

[0256]FIG. 18 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of fatigue to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. The fatigue factor may be applied to atortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type.

[0257] At decision point 1801 in FIG. 18, the number of hours the partyhad been driving may be determined. If the driver had been driving formore then 6 hours, then the factor may be a talking point as shown bystep 1803. If the driver had been driving for 6 hours or less, thendecision point 1805 asks how long the driver had been awake, but notdriving. If the driver was awake but not driving for more than 12 hours,then the factor may be a talking point as shown by step 1807. If thedriver was awake for 12 hours or less prior to driving, then the numberof hours the driver last slept may be determined at decision point 1809.If the driver slept less than 6 hours, the factor may be a talkingpoint, as shown by step 1811. If the driver slept 6 hours or more, thenthe fatigue factor may not be applicable, as shown by step 1813.

[0258]FIG. 19 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of faulty equipment to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. As used herein, the term “faultyequipment” generally refers to any vehicle equipment malfunction thatcauses an action, prohibits the operator from taking action, or fails toperform an action. In an embodiment, the faulty equipment factor may notapply to headlights, taillights, or brake lights that do not function asother factors may be provided that account for these potential equipmentfailures. The faulty equipment factor may be applied to a tortfeasorand/or other party for any accident type.

[0259] Decision point 1901 may ask whether defective equipmentcontributed to the accident, as depicted in FIG. 19. If defectiveequipment did not contribute to the accident, then the faulty equipmentfactor may not be applicable, as shown in step 1903. If defectiveequipment contributed to the accident, the next step may be decisionpoint 1905, which may determine the party that faulty equipmentaffected. If the faulty equipment affected the other party, as shown instep 1907, then a talking point may be reached. If the faulty equipmentaffected the tortfeasor, the next step may be decision point 1909, whichmay determine the age of the vehicle.

[0260] If the vehicle was one year old or greater, then the vehicle maynot be considered new. If the vehicle was less than one year old, thenthe next decision point 1911 may ask the mileage on the vehicle. If thevehicle mileage was less than 10,000 miles at the time of the accident,the vehicle may be considered new. If the vehicle mileage was 10,000miles or greater at the time of the accident, the vehicle may not beconsidered new.

[0261] In some embodiments, if the vehicle was new, then step 1913 maybe a talking point. Alternately, in some embodiments, step 1913 mayindicate that the faulty equipment may be attributed to a third party.The third party may include the person or entity from which the vehiclewas purchased or serviced. If the vehicle was not considered new bysteps 1909 or 1911, the next step may be decision point 1915 that mayask whether the defective part was serviced within the last month. Ifservice was performed on the defective part within the last month, atalking point may be reached, as shown by step 1917. In someembodiments, step 1917 may be an ALV of 0% for the driver of the vehiclewith the defective part. In some embodiments, at least a portion of theliability for the accident may be attributed to a third party at step1917. For example, the third party may be an individual or entity thatlast serviced the defective part. The third party may also include themanufacturer of the defective part. If the defective part was notserviced within the last month, decision point 1919 may ask if there wasany indication or history of the problem. Whether or not there was anindication or history of the problem, the faulty equipment factor mayreach a talking point as shown by steps 1921 and 1923. Steps 1921 and1923 may be indicated differently in an assessment report as discussedwith reference to FIG. 55. In alternate embodiments, if there was noindication or history of the problem at step 1919, another decisionpoint may be reached. The decision point may be to determine whether ornot unwanted acceleration occurred. If not, then a talking point may bereached and noted in the assessment report. However, if an unwantedacceleration did occur, the driver of the affected vehicle may beassessed an ALV of 0% liability. Additionally, a portion of theliability may be assessed to a third party. For example, the third partymay include a manufacturer or seller of the vehicle or the defectivepart.

[0262]FIG. 20a is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factorthat accounts for the contribution of following too closely to a motorvehicle accident according to a first embodiment. As used herein, theterm “following too closely” generally refers to an action by the driverof a rear vehicle in which the driver of the rear vehicle fails toremain a safe distance from a vehicle in front of them before theaccident, thus contributing to the accident. In some embodiments, thefollowing too closely factor may be applied only to the tortfeasor andmay only be applied for accident type 1.

[0263] As shown by decision point 2001 in FIG. 20a, if the accident typewas not type 1 or the tortfeasor was not behind or following the otherparty, then the factor may not be applicable as shown by step 2003. Ifthe accident type was type 1 and the tortfeasor was following the otherparty, then the next step 2005 may be to gather information regardingthe accident. The information may include the number of vehicle lengthsbetween the other party and the tortfeasor before the accident, and thespeed that the tortfeasor was traveling. Additionally, as shown by step2007, information may be gathered from any witnesses who may verify thenumber of vehicle lengths that were between the other party and thetortfeasor.

[0264] The next decision point 2009 may ask for the speed of thetortfeasor. The speed of the tortfeasor may be used to determine arecommended safe following distance the tortfeasor should have beentraveling behind the other party in steps 2011 or 2013. For example, ifthe tortfeasor was traveling less than 45 mph, then the recommended safefollowing distance in vehicle lengths may be determined by: speed/10, asshown by step 2011. If the tortfeasor was traveling 45 mph or greater,the recommended safe following distance may be: 1.5 * (speed/10), asshown by step 2013. From this determination, the decision point 2015 mayask whether the actual number of vehicle lengths was less than therecommended safe following distance. If the actual vehicle lengths wereless than the recommended safe following distance, then the factor maybe a talking point as shown by step 2017. If the actual vehicle lengthsbetween the tortfeasor and other party were not less than therecommended safe following distance, then the following too closelyfactor may not be applicable, as shown by step 2019.

[0265]FIG. 20b is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factorthat accounts for the contribution of following too closely to a motorvehicle accident according to a second embodiment. As shown by decisionpoint 2025 in FIG. 20b, if the accident type was not type 1 or thetortfeasor was not behind or following the other party, then the factormay not be applicable as shown by step 2027. If the accident type wastype 1 and the tortfeasor was following the other party, then the nextstep 2029 may be to determine if the actual following distance was lessthan a recommended safe following distance according to the table inFIG. 20c.

[0266]FIG. 20c depicts a table for determining a recommended safefollowing distance. If the driver of the rear vehicle was traveling atless than or equal to 45 mile per hour (mph), then row 2050 may be usedto determine the recommended safe following distance. If the driver ofthe rear vehicle was traveling at greater than 45 mph, then row 2052 maybe used to determine the recommended safe following distance. Column2054 may determine a surface of the road.

[0267] At speeds of less than or equal to 45 mph and with a gravel roadsurface the recommended safe following distance may be at least 20% ofthe speed in vehicle lengths (e.g., speed * 0.2=number of vehiclelengths). Thus, at 40 mph, the recommended safe travel distance may be 8vehicle lengths (i.e., 40 * 0.2=8 vehicle lengths). At speeds of greaterthan 45 mph and with a gravel road surface the recommended safefollowing distance may be at least 30% of the speed in vehicle lengths.

[0268] For non-gravel road surfaces, a condition of the road surface maybe considered in column 2056. The condition of the road surface mayinclude, but is not limited to, dry, wet, or muddy. In addition, thecondition of the road surface may consider whether the road is coveredwith snow or ice, has patches of snow or ice, or has plowed snow or ice.In various embodiments, other road conditions may also be considered.For example, a road condition that may be prevalent in a particularregion may be considered, such as having ruts. Once the road conditionhas been determined, a recommended safe following distance may bedetermined based on a percentage of the speed as specified in column2058. It is envisioned that the specific percentage of speed specifiedby various combinations of speed, road surface, and road condition maybe varied according to the preference of the insurance carrier, orregional or jurisdictional preferences.

[0269]FIG. 21 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of driving with headlights off to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. In some embodiments, theheadlights off factor may not apply to accident types 1, and 14. Thefactor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party.

[0270] In FIG. 21, decision point 2101 asks for the accident type. Foraccident types 1, and 14, the factor may not be applicable as shown bystep 2105. Additionally, in some embodiments, the factor may not applyfor accident types 15 and 17. For the remaining accident types, the nextstep may be decision point 2103 in which visibility at the time of theaccident may be determined. The visibility factor is illustrated in FIG.35. If visibility was good, then the driving with headlights off factormay not be applicable as shown by step 2109. Otherwise, if visibilitywas poor, decision point 2111 may determine if the party was drivingwith the vehicle's headlights on. If it is determined that the party hadthe headlights on, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown bystep 2119. If the vehicle's headlights were off at the time of theaccident, then decision point 2121 may be reached. Decision point 2121asks whether the location of the accident was relatively dark, forexample, without streetlights at the time. If it was dark withoutstreetlights, the party may have a “high” penalty value assessed, asshown by step 2123. If it was not dark and/or streetlights were on, thenthe other party may have a “medium” penalty value assessed, as shown bystep 2125.

[0271] In some embodiments, the method of determining the effect onliability of driving with headlights off may determine different penaltyvalues depending on the party being considered. For example, if it isdetermined that the tortfeasor was driving with headlights off, atalking point may be reached. If it is determined that the other partywas driving with headlights off, then penalty values as described abovemay be assessed to the other party.

[0272] In some embodiments, the method of determining the effect onliability of driving with headlights off may determine if bothheadlights were off or if only one headlight was off. If only oneheadlight was on, the method may determine if the one headlight wouldhave provided adequate lighting for the driver of the vehicle to drivesafely. If it is determined that the one headlight may not have providedadequate lighting, the method may proceed to step 2121 to determine apenalty value to assess. The method may also consider whether the oneheadlight would have made the vehicle visible to the driver of the othervehicle (e.g., was the one working headlight visible to the driver ofthe other vehicle). If it is determined that the one headlight may nothave made the vehicle visible to the driver of the other vehicle, themethod may proceed to step 2121 to determine a penalty value to assess.

[0273]FIG. 22 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of driving with high beams on to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The high beams factor maybe applied to a tortfeasor and/or the other party. In some embodiments,the factor may only be applied for accident type 16. In suchembodiments, the factor may not be applied for the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination F16. The high beams factor maybe related to glare that causes a driver to be blinded.

[0274] In FIG. 22, decision point 2201 and step 2205 indicate the factormay only be applicable for accident type 16, not including roadwayconfiguration F. If the answer to decision point 2201 is yes, thendecision point 2203 may ask whether high beams were on at the time ofthe accident. If not, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown bystep 2209. If the high beams were on, the lighting may be determined atstep 2207. If the lighting was dark, with or without streetlights, thenliability may depend upon which party is being considered, as shown bydecision point 2211. If the lighting was other than dark, with orwithout streetlights (e.g., daylight, dawn, or dusk) then the factor maynot be applicable, as shown by step 2213. If the party is thetortfeasor, then decision point 2215 may ask whether the other party wasblinded. If the other party was blinded, then the factor may be atalking point, as shown by step 2219. If the other party was notblinded, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step 2217.In other embodiments, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to thetortfeasor if the other party was blinded, and a “low” penalty value maybe assessed if the other party was not blinded.

[0275] If the party is the other party, then decision point 2221 may askif the tortfeasor was blinded. If not, then the factor may not beapplicable, as shown by step 2223. If the tortfeasor was blinded, thefactor may apply a “medium” penalty value, as shown in step 2227. Inalternate embodiments, if the tortfeasor was blinded, then anotherdecision point may be reached that may depend on the roadwayconfiguration. If the roadway configuration was E, then a “medium”penalty value may be assessed. If the roadway configuration was A, B, orH, then a “low” penalty value may be assessed. If the roadwayconfiguration was other than A, B, E, or H, than the factor may not beapplicable.

[0276]FIG. 23 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of illness to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. As used herein, the term “illness”generally refers to a physical condition that prohibits the safeoperation of a vehicle. The illness factor may be applied to atortfeasor only for any accident type.

[0277] If the party is determined to be the other party at decisionpoint 2301 in FIG. 23, then the factor may not be applicable, as shownby step 2303. For the tortfeasor, the next step is decision point 2305,which may ask whether the illness contributed to the accident. If not,then the factor may not be applicable as shown by step 2307. If illnessof the tortfeasor contributed to the accident, then decision point 2309may ask if the tortfeasor had a history of the illness. If not, then anALV of 0% liability may be assessed to the tortfeasor. If the tortfeasorhad a history of illness, then decision point 2311 may ask if thetortfeasor was medically cleared to drive. If the tortfeasor was notcleared to drive, then the illness factor may not be applicable as shownby step 2317. If the tortfeasor was cleared to drive without medication,then an ALV of 0% liability may be assessed to the tortfeasor, as shownby step 2315. If the tortfeasor was medically cleared to drive withmedication, then decision point 2319 may be reached, which may ask ifthe required medication had been taken. If the required medication hadbeen taken, then an ALV of 0% liability may be assessed to thetortfeasor, as shown by step 2321. If the required medication had notbeen taken, then 2323 indicates that a talking point may be reached.

[0278]FIGS. 24a and 24 b are flow charts for estimating the effect of afactor that accounts for the contribution of an improper lane change toa motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. An improper lanechange may be a lane change that was completed before the accident andcontributed to the accident. The improper lane change factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party only for accident type 1.In an embodiment, the factor may determine the effect on liability of animproper lane change based on vehicle lengths between the vehiclesbefore the accident and a subjective determination of the magnitude ofdeceleration of the parties. It is believed that an improper lane changemay reduce the opportunity of the tortfeasor to avoid the accidentand/or may reduce the tortfeasor's available stopping distance. Forexample, if other party and the tortfeasor are slowing and other partypulls in between the tortfeasor and whatever the other party and thetortfeasor are stopping for, the tortfeasor's available stoppingdistance may be reduced.

[0279] In FIG. 24a, decision point 2401 may ask whether the accidenttype was type 1, and whether the other party and right of way have beendetermined. If any of these conditions is not true, the factor may notbe applicable, as shown in step 2403. If the accident type is 1, and theother party and right of way have been determined, then the next step2404 may ask if the other party changed lanes prior to the accident. Ifthe other party did not change lanes, then step 2406 indicates that thefactor may not be applicable. If the other party changed lanes beforethe accident, the next step 2405 may be to determine effective vehiclelengths between the other party and the tortfeasor. The term “effectivevehicle lengths,” as used herein, generally refers to the actual vehiclelengths between the parties minus an adjustment.

[0280] The determination of the effective vehicle lengths 2405 is shownin FIG. 24b. Decision point 2433 may ask if the other party's lanechange was a sudden lane change. If it was, then decision point 2435 mayask if the other party signaled the lane change. If the other partysignaled, then the effective vehicle lengths may be the actual vehiclelengths minus one, as shown in step 2439. If the other party did notsignal, then the effective vehicle lengths may be the actual vehiclelengths minus two, as shown by step 2440. If the answer to decisionpoint 2433 is no, the decision point 2437 may ask if the other partysignaled the lane change. If the other party did signal the lane change,then the effective vehicle lengths may be the actual vehicle lengths, asshown in step 2441. If the other party did not signal, then theeffective vehicle lengths may be the actual vehicle lengths minus one,as shown by step 2442.

[0281] Turning again to FIG. 24a, if the effective vehicle lengths areless than 1, then decision point 2409 may ask if the tortfeasor wasslowing down when the lane change took place. If the tortfeasor was notslowing down, then a penalty value of 75% of liability may be assessedto the other party, as shown by step 2418. Alternately, in anembodiment, if the tortfeasor was not slowing down, then the liabilitymay be determined by an experienced claims adjuster. If the tortfeasorwas slowing down in either a slight or an extreme manner, then a penaltyvalue of 100% of liability may be assessed to the other party at step2417 or 2419. In some embodiments, an ALV of 100% liability may beassessed at steps 2417 and 2419 rather than a penalty value.

[0282] If the effective vehicle lengths are about 1 or about 2, thendecision point 2411 again may ask if the tortfeasor was slowing down. Ifthe tortfeasor was not slowing down, then a penalty value of 75% ofliability may be assessed to the other party, as shown by step 2422.Alternately, in an embodiment, if the tortfeasor was not slowing down,then the liability may be determined by an experienced claims adjuster.If the tortfeasor was slowing down in either a slight or an extrememanner, then a penalty value of 100% of liability may be assessed to theother party at step 2423 or 2425. In some embodiments, an ALV of 100%liability may be assessed at steps 2423 and 2425 rather than a penaltyvalue.

[0283] If the effective vehicle lengths are about 3 or about 4, thendecision point 2413 may ask if the other party was slowing down. If theother party was either not slowing down or slightly slowing, then nopenalty value may be assessed to either party, as shown by steps 2427and 2429. If the other party was slowing down in an extreme manner atthe time of the lane change, then a penalty value of 50% of liabilitymay be assigned to the other party, as shown by steps 2431.

[0284] If the effective vehicle lengths are greater than about 4, thenno penalty value may be assessed to either party, as shown by steps2407.

[0285] In other embodiments, the actual speed and/or distance betweenthe vehicles before the accident or at the time of the lane change maybe determined. An analysis like the one described above may then be usedto determine the effect on liability of the lane change based on theactual speed and/or distance between the vehicles.

[0286]FIG. 25 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of an improperly parked vehicle to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The improperly parkedvehicle factor may be applied only to the other party and only foraccident type 14. In an embodiment, a parked vehicle may be consideredlegally parked, illegally parked, or disabled.

[0287] In FIG. 25, decision point 2501 and step 2503 indicate that thefactor may not be applicable to accident types other than type 14. Ifthe accident type is 14, then decision point 2505 may ask whether thevehicle was legally parked. If the vehicle was legally parked, then thefactor may not be applicable, as shown by step 2507. If the vehicle wasnot legally parked, then decision point 2509 may ask if the vehicle wasdisabled. If the vehicle was not disabled and was not legally parked,then a penalty value may be estimated by an experienced claims adjuster,as shown by step 2513. If the vehicle was disabled and was not legallyparked, then decision point 2511 may ask where the vehicle was parked.If the vehicle was outside a travel lane, then regardless of whether thevehicle had its flashers on, the factor may not be applicable, as shownby decision point 2517 and steps 2519 and 2521.

[0288] If the vehicle was parked in a travel lane, then decision point2515 may ask why it was there. If the vehicle ran out of gas, thendecision point 2523 asks if the vehicle had its flashers on. A penaltyvalue may be determined by experienced claims adjusters in steps 2525and 2527 for either a yes or no answer. If the vehicle was abandoned orthere was no apparent reason why the vehicle was in the travel lane,then decision point 2531 may ask if the vehicle had its flashers on. Apenalty value may be determined by an experienced claims adjuster insteps 2533 and 2535 for either a yes or no answer. If the vehicle was inthe travel lane due to a breakdown or accident, then decision point 2529may ask if the other party had knowledge of the defect, which may havecaused the breakdown or accident. If yes, then decision point 2537 askshow long the vehicle had been parked at the location of the accident. Ifthe vehicle was there for less than or equal to one hour, then decisionpoint 2541 asks if the vehicle had its flashers on. A penalty value maybe determined by experienced claims adjusters in steps 2545 or 2547 foreither a yes or no answer. If the vehicle was sitting in the travel lanefor more than one hour, then decision point 2541 asks if the vehicle hadits flashers on. A penalty value may be determined by experienced claimsadjusters in steps 2549 or 2551 for either a yes or no answer.

[0289] If the other party did not have knowledge of the defect atdecision point 2529, then decision point 2539 may ask how long thevehicle had been parked at the location of the accident. If the vehiclewas there for less than or equal to one hour, then decision point 2553asks if the vehicle had its flashers on. A penalty value may bedetermined by experienced claims adjusters in steps 2557 or 2559 foreither a yes or no answer. If the vehicle was sitting in the travel lanefor more than one hour, then decision point 2555 may ask if the vehiclehad its flashers on. A penalty value may be determined by experiencedclaims adjusters in steps 2561 or 2563 for either a yes or no answer,respectively.

[0290] In other embodiments, a parked vehicle may be assumed to alwayshave the right of way. Thus, no improperly parked vehicle factor may beused.

[0291]FIG. 26 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of improper signaling to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. As used herein, the term “impropersignaling” generally refers to signaling one action and doing another ornot signaling at all. In certain embodiments, an improper signal mayrefer only to signaling one action and doing another (i.e., not to “nosignal”). In such embodiments, an improper turn and lack of signal maynot be part of the improper signaling factor. “No signal” and improperturn and lack of signal may already be taken into account by the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination.

[0292] As shown in FIG. 26, if it is determined at decision point 2601that the accident type is 1, 14, or 15, then the factor may not beapplicable, as shown in step 2603. For all other accident types,decision point 2605 may ask if a party signaled improperly. If theanswer to decision point 2605 is no, then the factor may not beapplicable, as shown by step 2609. If the answer is yes, then a “low”penalty value may be assessed against the party that signaledimproperly, as shown in step 2607. In some embodiments, an additionaldecision point may follow decision point 2605 if a party did signalimproperly. The additional decision point may determine which partysignaled improperly. In such embodiments, if it is the other party thatimproperly signaled then a low penalty value may be assessed against theother party. If the tortfeasor improperly signaled, then a talking pointmay be reached.

[0293]FIG. 27 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of an obstructed view or glare to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The obstructed view orglare factor may be applied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for anyaccident type. If an obstructed view or glare affected a party's view ofother vehicles or a traffic sign, the factor may be a talking point.

[0294] In FIG. 27, decision point 2701 may ask if a driver's view ofanother vehicle or a traffic control was obscured. Step 2703 indicatesthat if the answer is no, then the factor may not be applicable. In someembodiments, if the answer to decision point 2701 is yes, then anotherdecision point may ask if the obstructed view or glare contributed tothe accident. If not, then the factor may not be applicable. If it isdetermined that the obstructed view or glare contributed to theaccident, the decision point may lead to decision point 2707. Decisionpoint 2707 may ask whether it was a glare obscured the driver's view. Ifit was a glare, then the factor may be a talking point, as shown by step2711. In some embodiment, if the answer to decision point 2707 is no,then there may be a request to provide a description of the obstructionfor use in an assessment report. In step 2715, the obstructed view maybe a talking point.

[0295]FIG. 28 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of road condition to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. The road condition factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. Asshown in FIG. 28, the road condition at decision point 2801 may beeither dry or in some other condition. If the road condition is dry,then step 2803 may indicate that the factor may not be applicable. Otherconditions may include, but are not limited to, a roadway that is wet,has snow and/or ice, is muddy, has plowed snow, has been salted, or hassnow and/or ice patches. If other conditions apply to the roadway, thenstep 2805 may indicate that the factor may be a talking point.

[0296]FIG. 29 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of road character to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. The road character factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. Asshown in FIG. 29, the road character at decision point 2901 may beeither level or some other character. If the road character is level,then step 2903 indicates that the factor may not be applicable. Otherroad characters may include, but are not limited to, a roadway that hasa hill, a hillcrest, or a sag-bottom of a hill. If other road charactersapply to the roadway, then step 2905 may indicate that the factor may bea talking point.

[0297]FIG. 30 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of road surface to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. The road surface factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. Asshown in FIG. 30, the road surface at decision point 3001 may be eitherconcrete/asphalt or some other surface. If the road surface isconcrete/asphalt, then step 3003 may indicate that the factor may notapplicable. Other road surfaces may include, but are not limited tobrick, dirt, or gravel. If other surfaces apply to the roadway, thenstep 3005 indicates that the factor may be a talking point.

[0298]FIGS. 31a-b may be used in combination with FIG. 31c forestimating the effect of a factor that accounts for the contribution ofspeed to a motor vehicle accident according to a first embodiment. Insome embodiments, the speed factor may not apply to accident type 14.The speed factor may be applied to either or both parties depending onthe circumstances of the accident.

[0299] In FIG. 31a, step 3101 in estimating the speed factor may be todetermine the maximum safe speed. In some embodiments, step 3101 may bedirected to determining the maximum legal speed. Determination of themaximum safe speed is illustrated by the flow charts in FIG. 31b. Asshown in FIG. 31b, the maximum safe speed may be determined by reducingthe legal speed limit to account for adverse road conditions and/orweather conditions. If the road condition is dry and the weather clear,the maximum safe speed may be the legal speed limit. However, if theroad condition is not dry and/or the weather is not clear, then themaximum safe speed may be less than the speed limit. Decision point 3141in FIG. 31b may inquire as to the road condition at the accident scene.Steps 3143, 3145, 3147, 3149, and 3151 may provide the corrections whenroad conditions are dry (e.g., 0), wet (e.g., 0.1×legal speed limit),snow (e.g., 0.2×legal speed limit), muddy (e.g., 0.2×legal speed limit),and ice (e.g., 0.3×legal speed limit), respectively. Similarly, decisionpoint 3153 in FIG. 31b may inquire as to the weather at the accidentscene. Steps 3155, 3157, 3159, and 3161 may provide the corrections whenthe weather is clear (e.g., 0), smoke, etc. (e.g., 0.1×legal speedlimit), snowing (e.g., 0.2×legal speed limit), and fog (e.g., 0.2×legalspeed limit), respectively. For example, if the speed limit is 60 milesper hour, the road condition is wet, and the weather is snowing the safespeed may be: 60−(0.1×60)−(0.2×60)=60−6−12=42 miles per hour.

[0300] Step 3105 in FIG. 31a shows that if the answer to decision point3103 is accident type 14, the factor may not be applicable. For anyother accident type, decision point 3107 may ask which party is underconsideration. If the party is the tortfeasor, then decision point 3111may ask if the party was going faster than the maximum safe speedcalculated in step 3101. If the answer is yes, then step 3113 may referto the table in FIG. 31c to calculate the effect on the liability. Ifthe party was not going faster than the maximum safe speed, then thefactor may not be applicable, as shown in step 3115.

[0301] If the party being considered at decision point 3107 is the otherparty, then decision point 3109 may ask if the accident type is 1. Ifthe accident type is not 1, then decision point 3119 may ask if theother party was going faster than the maximum safe speed calculated instep 3101. If the answer is yes, then step 3121 may refer to the tablein FIG. 31c to calculate the effect on the liability. If the party wasnot going faster than the maximum safe speed, then step 3123 mayindicate that the factor may not be applicable.

[0302] If the accident type is 1 at decision point 3109, decision point3117 may ask if the other party was stopped at a yielding trafficcontrol. If the answer is yes, then step 3125 indicates that the factormay not be applicable. If the answer is no, then decision point 3127 mayask if the other party was traveling at less than a minimum legal speedfor the roadway. If not, then step 3132 indicates that the factor maynot be applicable. If the party was traveling at less than the minimumlegal speed, but not considerably slower, then decision point 3131 mayask if the vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3137 indicates that thefactor may not be applicable if the vehicle's flashers were on. If theflashers were not on, step 3139 indicates that a “low” penalty value maybe assessed against the other party. If the other party was travelingconsiderably slower than the minimum legal speed, then decision point3129 may ask if the vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3133 indicates thatthe factor may not be applicable if the flashers were on. If theflashers were not on, step 3135 indicates that a “medium” penalty valuemay be assessed against the other party. In certain embodiments, otherconsiderations may be used in determining the effect on liability of theother party traveling at less than the minimum legal speed. For example,in certain jurisdictions, various methods may be allowed to indicate aslow moving vehicle. For example, a sign or placard may be displayed ona vehicle or the vehicle may have a flashing yellow light. In suchembodiments, the use of any approved method to provide warning to othertraffic that the vehicle is moving slowly may result in the factor beingnot applicable.

[0303]FIG. 31c is a table illustrating the estimation of the effect of afactor that accounts for the contribution of speed to a motor vehicleaccident according to the first embodiment. The first column of FIG. 31cmay be related to the maximum safe speed calculated as shown in FIG.31b. The second column of FIG. 31c may include an actual speed for thevehicle. The third column may include following distances subjectivelyestimated by an experienced claims adjuster for several ranges of theactual speed of a following vehicle. A following distance less than thatspecified for a given actual speed range may be considered close while afollowing distance greater than that specified may be considered far.The fourth and fifth columns may provide exemplary penalty values orALVs to be assessed to a party under consideration.

[0304] For example, if the determined maximum safe speed is 50 miles perhour, a vehicle with an actual speed of 65 miles per hour following at adistance of 175 feet may have a penalty value assessed of 10% accordingto FIG. 31c. For the same maximum safe speed, a vehicle with an actualspeed of 85 miles per hour may have an absolute liability value of 70%assessed.

[0305]FIGS. 32a-c may be used for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of speed to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to a second embodiment. In some embodiments, the speed factormay not apply to accident type 14, as shown in step 3205 of FIG. 32b.

[0306] Referring to FIG. 32a, a maximum safe speed may be estimated. Themaximum safe speed may be estimated as a percentage of the maximum legalspeed (i.e., speed limit) for the location. To estimate the percentageof the speed limit corresponding to the maximum safe speed, a roadcondition may be selected from the first column of the table. Each roadcondition may be associated with a percentage that may be used toestimate the maximum safe speed for the location. Thus, for example, avehicle traveling on a dry road having a speed limit of 65 mph may beestimated as having a maximum safe speed of 65 mph. However, if the roadis wet, the vehicle may be estimated to have a maximum safe speed ofabout 59 mph.

[0307] In some embodiments, after the safe speed from the table isdetermined an additional adjustment may be made to the estimate of themaximum safe speed based on the weather. For example, in someembodiments, if the weather is raining, sleeting or hailing the safespeed from the table in FIG. 32a may be reduced by 10%. If the weatheris snowing, the safe speed determined from the table in FIG. 32a may bereduced by 20%. If the weather is foggy, smoky or smoggy the safe speeddetermined from the table in FIG. 32a may be reduced by 30%.

[0308]FIG. 32b depicts a flow chart for determining the effect of speedon liability in a vehicle accident. Step 3205 shows that if the answerto decision point 3203 is accident type 14, the factor may not beapplicable. For any other accident type, decision point 3207 may askwhich party is under consideration. If the party is the tortfeasor, thendecision point 3211 may ask if the tortfeasor was going faster than theestimated maximum safe speed. If the answer is yes, then step 3213 mayrefer to the table in FIG. 32c to calculate the effect on the liability.If the tortfeasor was not going faster than the maximum safe speed, thenthe factor may not be applicable, as shown in step 3215.

[0309] If the party being considered at decision point 3207 is the otherparty, then decision point 3209 may ask if the accident type is 1. Ifthe accident type is not 1, then decision point 3219 may ask if theother party was going faster than the estimated maximum safe speed. Ifthe answer is yes, then step 3221 may refer to the table in FIG. 32c tocalculate the effect on the liability. If the party was not going fasterthan the maximum safe speed, then step 3223 indicates that the factormay not be applicable.

[0310] However, if the accident type is 1 at decision point 3209,decision point 3217 may ask if the other party was stopped at a yieldingtraffic control. If the answer is yes, then step 3225 indicates that thefactor may not be applicable. If the answer is no, then decision point3227 may ask if the other party was traveling at less than a minimumlegal speed for the roadway. In some embodiments, decision point 3227may ask if the other party was traveling at less than a prevailing speedon the roadway. If the other party was not traveling at less than theminimum legal speed, then step 3232 indicates that the factor may not beapplicable. If the other party was traveling at less than the minimumlegal speed, but not considerably slower, then decision point 3231 mayask if the vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3237 indicates that thefactor may not be applicable if the vehicle's flashers were on. If theflashers were not on, step 3239 indicates that a “low” penalty value maybe assessed against the other party. If the other party was travelingconsiderably slower than the minimum legal speed, then decision point3229 may ask if the vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3233 indicates thatthe factor may not be applicable if the vehicle's flashers were on. Ifthe flashers were not on, step 3235 indicates that a “high” penaltyvalue may be assessed against the other party. In certain embodiments,other considerations may be used in determining the effect on liabilityof the other party traveling at less than the minimum legal speed asdiscussed with reference to FIGS. 31a and 31 b.

[0311]FIG. 32c may be used to estimate an effect on liability of thecontribution of speed to a vehicle accident. The table of FIG. 32c maybe used in the same manner described for FIG. 31c above.

[0312]FIG. 33a is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factorthat accounts for the contribution of a sudden stop or swerve to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. As used herein, the term“sudden stop or swerve” generally refers to a rapid deceleration orchange of direction. A sudden stop or swerve may typically be taken toavoid another object such as, but not limited to, an animal, pedestrian,road defect, another vehicle or road debris. FIGS. 33b-f are flow chartsassociated with FIG. 33a that estimate the effect on liability of asudden stop or swerve. A sudden stop or swerve factor may be applied tothe tortfeasor for accident types 11, 12, 13, and 16 or to the otherparty for accident type 1.

[0313] In FIG. 33a, decision point 3301 and step 3302 indicate that thefactor may not be applicable to combinations other than to thetortfeasor for accident types 11, 12, 13, or 16 and to the other partyfor accident type 1. If the party and accident type under considerationare one of these combinations, then decision point 3303 asks whetherthere was a sudden stop or swerve in the accident. If there was not,then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step 3304. If therewas a sudden stop or swerve then the reason for the sudden stop orswerve may be solicited at decision point 3305. The reason may include aroad defect, debris, a pedestrian, another vehicle, or an animal. Inaddition, FIG. 33a also considers the case of a sudden stop or swervefor no apparent reason.

[0314] In FIG. 33a, if the reason is a road defect the flow chart mayrefer to a road defect flow chart 3380 as depicted in FIG. 33b. Thefirst decision point 3306 in road defect flow chart 3380 may asks if theparty should have seen the road defect sooner than the party did. Ifyes, then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party underconsideration as shown by decision point 3307. If the answer to decisionpoint 3306 is no, then decision point 3308 may be reached where it isdetermined whether the party was familiar with the area of the accidentand/or the defect. If the party was familiar with the area of theaccident and/or the defect, then a “medium” penalty value may beassessed to the party, as shown by step 3309. If the party was notfamiliar with the area of the accident and/or the defect at decisionpoint 3308, then decision point 3312 may ask if the sudden stop orswerve was reasonable. If the answer is yes, then an ALV of 0% liabilitymay be assessed to the party at step 3313. In addition, it may be notedin an assessment report that a third party (e.g., a party responsible tomaintain the road or a party that cased the defect) may have contributedto the accident, and may thus bear a portion of the liability. If atdecision point 3312, it is determined that the action was notreasonable, then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the partyat step 3314.

[0315] In FIG. 33a, if the reason for the sudden stop or swerve atdecision point 3305 is debris, then the flow chart may refer to a debrisflow chart 3381 as depicted in FIG. 33c. Decision point 3315 of debrisflow chart 3381 may ask whether the party should have seen the debrissooner than the party did. If not, then decision point 3322 may bereached, which may ask if the sudden stop or swerve was reasonable. Ifthe answer to decision point 3315 is yes, then decision point 3316 maydetermine whether the debris was dangerous. If the debris was dangerous,then decision point 3322 may ask if the sudden stop or swerve wasreasonable. If the debris was not dangerous, then decision point 3319may ask if the debris was moving. If the debris was not moving, then a“medium” penalty value may be assessed against the party. If the debriswas moving, then decision point 3320 may inquire whether the debris wascoming towards the party. If not, then a talking point may be reached instep 3323. If yes, then decision point 3322 may ask if the sudden stopor swerve was reasonable. At decision point 3322, if it is determinedthat the action was reasonable, then an ALV of 0% may be assessedagainst the party at step 3317. In addition, it may be noted in anassessment report that a third party (e.g., a party responsible for thedebris) may have contributed to the accident, and may thus bear aportion of the liability. If at decision point 3322, it is determinedthat the action was not reasonable then a “medium” penalty value may beassessed to the party at step 3318.

[0316] In FIG. 33a, if the reason for the sudden stop or swerve atdecision point 3305 is a pedestrian or other vehicle, then the flowchart may refer to a pedestrian or 3rd vehicle flow chart 3382 asdepicted in FIG. 33d. It may be determined at decision point 3326whether the sudden stop and swerve was reasonable. If it was reasonable,then an ALV of 0% may be assessed to the party under consideration, asshown by step 3328. If the sudden stop and swerve at decision point 3326is not reasonable, then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to theparty as shown by step 3329.

[0317] In FIG. 33a, if there is no apparent reason for the sudden stopor swerve at decision point 3305, then the flow chart may refer to a noapparent reason flow chart 3383 as depicted in FIG. 33e. If the actionwas a swerve, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step3332. Alternately, in some embodiments, a “medium” penalty value may beassessed if the action was a swerve. If the action was a sudden stop,decision point 3333 may ask if the accident occurred on city streets. Ifyes, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party as shown bystep 3334. If not, a “high” penalty value may be assessed to the partyas shown by step 3335.

[0318] In FIG. 33a, if the reason for the sudden stop or swerve atdecision point 3305 is an animal, then the flow chart may refer to ananimal flow chart 3384 as depicted in FIG. 33f. It may be determined atdecision point 3336 if the party should have seen the animal sooner. Ifnot, then decision point 3338 may be reached which may ask if the suddenstop or swerve was reasonable. If the answer to decision point 3336 isyes, then decision point 3337 may ask if the situation was dangerous. Ifit is determined that the situation may have been dangerous, then atalking point may be reached at step 3340. If the situation was notdangerous, then decision point 3339 may ask if the animal was moving. Ifthe animal was not moving, then decision point 3347 may ask if theanimal was domestic as shown by decision point 3347. If the animal wasdomestic, then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed against theparty. Additionally, it may be noted in an assessment report that athird party (e.g., the animal's owner) may bear a portion of theliability. If the animal was not domestic, then a “medium” penalty valuemay be assessed against the party.

[0319] If the animal was moving, in answer to decision point 3339,decision point 3341 may ask if the animal was coming towards the party.If the animal was not, then a talking point may be reached, as shown bystep 3344. If the animal was coming towards the party, then decisionpoint 3345 may determine if the animal was domestic. If the animal wasnot domestic, decision point 3343 may determine if the action wasreasonable. If it is determined that the action was reasonable then anALV of 0% may be assessed against the party at step 3352. If at decisionpoint 3343, it is determined that the action was not reasonable then a“medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party at step 3354. If atdecision point 3345 it is determined that the animal was domestic,decision point 3338 may determine if the sudden stop or swerve wasreasonable. If it is determined that the action was reasonable, an ALVof 0% may be assessed against the party at step 3356. In addition, itmay be noted in an assessment report that a third party (e.g., theanimal's owner) may have contributed to the accident, and may thus beara portion of the liability. If at decision point 3338, it is determinedthat the action was not reasonable then a “medium” penalty value may beassessed to the party at step 3358.

[0320]FIG. 34 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of all taillights or brake lights beingoff when they should have been on to a motor vehicle accident accordingto one embodiment. The factor may apply to accidents where alltaillights or brake lights on a vehicle were off when they should havebeen on and contributed to the accident.

[0321] In FIG. 34, decision point 3401 and step 3403 indicate that thefactor may not be applicable for combinations other than to thetortfeasor for accident types 9 or 10 and to the other party foraccident type 1. In each case, the visibility should be known. The nextstep for one of those combinations is decision point 3405, which may askif the party was braking when the accident occurred. If the party wasnot braking, then decision point 3409 may ask the visibility at theaccident scene. Determination of the visibility is discussed with regardto FIG. 35. Step 3419 indicates that the factor may not be applicable ifthe visibility is good. If the visibility is poor, then decision point3421 may ask if the tail lights were on. In an embodiment, tail lightsmay be considered to be on if at least one tail light is on. Step 3433indicates that the factor may not be applicable if the tail lights wereon.

[0322] However, if tail lights were not on, decision point 3435 may askwhether it was dark without street lights. If the answer is yes todecision point 3435, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed againstthe party with the tail lights off at step 3445. Step 3447 indicatesthat if the answer to decision point 3435 is no, then a “low” penaltyvalue may be assessed against the party with the tail lights off.

[0323] If the answer to decision point 3405 is yes, then decision point3407 may ask whether brake lights were on. In an embodiment, brakelights may be considered on if at least one brake light was on. In otherembodiments, brake lights may be considered to be on if two or morebrake lights were on. Step 3411 indicates that the factor may not beapplicable if brake lights were on. If brake lights were not on,decision point 3413 inquires into the visibility at the accident scene.If visibility was good, then a “low” penalty value may be assessed tothe party with brake lights off, as shown by step 3415. If thevisibility was poor, then decision point 3417 may ask if the tail lightswere on. If the tail lights were on, then, according to step 3429, a“low” penalty value may be assessed to the party with the brake lightsoff. However, if the tail lights were not on then decision point 3431may be reached. The steps 3438 and 3440 are identical to steps 3445 and3447 previously described.

[0324]FIG. 35 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of visibility to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. The visibility factor may be applied to thetortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. As used herein, theterm “visibility” is generally defined as a combination of the weatherand the lighting that adversely affects ability to see other vehicles,traffic controls, etc. In some embodiments, visibility may not be anadjusting or talking point factor in and of itself. It may be mentionedas a comment to the accident. Visibility may be an input to otherfactors. In some embodiments, weather may be a separate flow chart thatmay be used as an input to other factors. Lighting may include, but isnot limited to, day, dawn, dusk, night with street lights, and nightwithout lights. Weather may include, but is not limited to, clear,cloudy, raining, sleet/hail/freezing rain, snow, fog/smoke/smog/dust,and fog with rain.

[0325]FIG. 35 is a flow chart that estimates the effect of visibility onthe liability. The first step in FIG. 35 is decision point 3501 that mayask the lighting conditions at the accident scene. If the lighting wasdaytime, then decision point 3503 may determine the weather conditions.If the weather is clear/cloudy as shown by step 3517, then the factormay not be applicable. Alternatively, if the weather is “all others”(i.e., other than clear or cloudy) as shown by step 3519, the visibilitymay be a talking point. As input into another flow chart, steps 3519 and3513 may be considered poor visibility and steps 3517 and 3511 may beconsidered good visibility.

[0326] Similarly, the adverse weather may be determined at decisionpoint 3505 if the answer to decision point 3501 is “other.” If theanswer to decision point 3505 is “clear/cloudy,” then visibility may bea talking point in reference to lighting as shown by step 3511. If theanswer to decision point 3505 is “all other,” then visibility may be atalking point in reference to weather and lighting as shown by step3513.

[0327]FIG. 36 depicts an embodiment of a flow chart and table for notingin an assessment report the effect of disobeyed signs or markings. InFIG. 36, decision point 3601 may determine if one or more signs ormarkings were disobeyed. If at decision point 3601, it is determinedthat no signs or markings were disobeyed, the factor may not beapplicable as shown at step 3605. If signs or markings were disobeyed,the method may refer to table 3607 at step 3603.

[0328] Table 3607 may provide a list of potential signs and markingsthat may have been disobeyed in column 3609. If a sign or marking wasdisobeyed, a note may be added to an assessment report indicating thesign or marking disobeyed and whether a citation resulted. If nocitation was issued, then a note from violation column 3613corresponding to the sign or marking disobeyed may be added to theassessment report. If a citation was issued then a note from citationcolumn 3615 corresponding to the sign or marking disobeyed may be addedto the assessment report as discussed with reference to FIG. 55.

[0329]FIG. 37 is an illustration of how a factor influence may be usedto adjust the effect of factors on the liability according to oneembodiment. The factor influence may determine the effect the sum of theeffects on liability resulting from factors may have on the baseliability. As shown in FIG. 37, the factor influence may have fourlevels: none (no adjustment), normal, low, and high. A “high” factorinfluence may allow factors to modify the liability significantly. A“low” factor influence may reduce the influence of the factors belowthat determined by the “normal” factor influence. Each factor influencelevel may have a percentage value associated with it, for example,normal=100%, low=50%, and high=150%. Therefore, a “low” factor influencemay cut in half the summation of all factor adjustments. In someembodiments, regardless of the factor influence setting, the lower andupper bounds of the liability may still constrain the final liabilityrange.

[0330] Once a method is used to estimate the effect of the factors onthe base liability, liability values (L_(A) and L_(B)) for each vehiclemay be calculated by combining the contribution for each vehicle withits corresponding base liability. Since the sum of the calculatedliabilities may be greater than 100%, it may be necessary to calculatenormalized liabilities from adjusted liabilities:L_(AN)=L_(A)/(L_(AN)+L_(A)) and L_(BN)=100%−L_(AN). If L_(AN) is greaterthan the upper bound, the final liability may be set equal to the upperbound. If L_(AN) is less than the lower bound of the liability, thefinal liability may be set equal to the lower bound.

[0331] Alternatively, the effect of the factors on liability may becombined with the base liability according to a debit-credit method. Aportion of the effect to liability of one vehicle may be added to thatparty's liability and the remainder may be subtracted from the otherparty's liability. For example, one half may be added to one party'sliability and one half subtracted from the other party's liability.

[0332] In an embodiment, the liability may be expressed as a rangerather than a single value. The range may be generated by a rangeradius. As used herein, the term “range radius” generally refers to apercentage value that may be added and subtracted from the finalliability to create the range: L_(AN)±range radius. The range radius maybe adjustable by the user and may be applied to all claims.

[0333] In one embodiment, a user may specify a range snap-to value. Asused herein, the term “range snap-to” value generally refers to amultiple to round up or down to for the range. For example, thecalculated liability may be 82±5%. If the range snap-to value is 5percent, the liability may be adjusted to 80±5%.

[0334] The liability range may be adjusted if any part of it fallsoutside of the upper and lower bounds of liability. In one embodiment,the liability range may be shifted. If the maximum of the liabilityrange is greater than the upper bound of liability, the maximum of theliability range may be shifted to the upper bound of liability. Theminimum of the range may be shifted to the lower bound of liability ifthe liability range is larger than the upper bound to lower bound range.If the liability range is less than the upper bound to lower boundrange, the minimum of the liability range may be shifted to the upperbound minus twice the range radius.

[0335] Similarly, if the minimum of the liability range is less than thelower bound of liability, the minimum of the liability range may beshifted to the lower bound of liability. The maximum of the range may beshifted to the upper bound of liability if the liability range is largerthan the upper bound to lower bound range. If the liability range isless than the upper bound to lower bound range, the maximum of theliability range may be shifted to the lower bound plus the twice therange radius.

[0336] Alternatively, rather than shifting, the liability range may betruncated to keep as much of the original liability range as possible.If the maximum of the liability range is greater than the upper bound,the maximum of the range may be the upper bound of liability. If theminimum of the range is less than the upper bound, the minimum of therange may be the lower bound of liability.

[0337] In one embodiment, a knowledge acquisition utility may beprovided to a user to allow the user to configure information associatedwith impact groups for roadway configuration/accident type combinations.For example, sets of impact groups associated with each roadwayconfiguration and accident type may be configured. Further, each impactgroup may have one or more estimates of base liability associated withit. For example, each impact group in a roadway configuration andaccident type combination may have a base liability, an upper range ofliability, and a lower range of liability for each party associated withit. FIG. 38 is a screen shot of a window that may be used for selectinga roadway configuration/accident type combination according to oneembodiment. As shown and discussed in reference to FIG. 8b, a givenroadway configuration/accident combination may be associated with aplurality of impact groups where an impact group may be a collection ofpairs of impact points. Impact points may be defined by the impact pointdiagram in FIG. 8a. Each of the pairs of impact points in the impactgroup may have the same base liability and lower and upper bounds ofliability. A claims organization may designate a user such as anexperienced claims adjusters to use the knowledge acquisition utility todetermine the number of impact groups for each roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination and the impact point pairs ineach impact group.

[0338] A claims organization may further employ a user (e.g., anexperienced claims adjusters) to assign base liabilities and lower andupper bounds of liability to each of the impact groups derived with theaid of the knowledge acquisition utility. As used herein, the term“knowledge acquisition utility” generally refers to an application thatallows a claims organization to configure a system for estimatingliability in an accident to meet the claims organizations needs. Forexample, the knowledge acquisition utility may allow the claimsorganization to set base liability, lower bound of liability and upperbound of liability for each impact group. The knowledge acquisitionutility may also allow the claims organization to configure a numericalvalue associated with penalty factors. For example, a claimsorganization may use the knowledge acquisition utility to set a “low”penalty value equal to a 10% adjustment in liability. Likewise, a“medium” penalty value may be set at 20% and a “high” penalty value setat 30%. In various embodiments, other determinants of liability may alsobe configurable by the claims organization using the knowledgeacquisition utility, including, but not limited to, situational weightsassociated with various factors, range radii, range snap-tos, etc.

[0339] In an embodiment, a knowledge acquisition utility may be used inconjunction with a tuning utility. A tuning utility may include aknowledge acquisition utility. In an embodiment of a tuning utility, theuser may select a roadway configuration and accident type combination toedit from a window as described with reference FIGS. 38 and 39. The usermay input base liabilities, lower, and upper bounds of liability foreach of the impact groups corresponding to the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination. After the base liabilities areinput, the user may run one or more pre-configured test scenarios builtinto the tuning utility. The user may then analyze the results andrefine the base liabilities. The procedure may be repeated until theuser is satisfied with the results produced by the liability estimationsystem. This process of entering estimates of liability or effect onliability, then testing those estimates by use or one or morepre-configured test scenarios is referred to herein as “tuning.” Theuser may enter base liability information for all other roadwayconfiguration and accident type combinations, run test scenarios,analyze output, refine tuning parameters, and repeat until satisfied.Likewise, the user may enter factor tuning information, as describedwith reference to FIG. 40, test each factor individually untilsatisfied, test combinations of factors, and adjust tuning parameters asnecessary.

[0340] The window depicted in FIG. 38 contains a matrix 3800 of roadwayconfigurations, R, and accident types, A. Diagrams representing roadwayconfigurations are illustrated in FIG. 5. Diagrams representing accidenttypes are illustrated in FIG. 4.

[0341] The elements of the matrix labeled with a “—” are combinationswhich may not be considered because the particular roadway configurationand accident type combination may be considered implausible. In theembodiment depicted, the implausible combinations are a subset of thecombinations labeled with an “N” in FIG. 6. In some embodiments, allroadway configuration and accident type combinations may be available tothe claims organization. In such embodiments, the claims organizationmay utilize the knowledge acquisition utility to designate one or morecombinations implausible.

[0342] To configure a particular roadway configuration and accident typecombination, a user may select the desired values of A and R from menus3801 and 3803, respectively. Selecting Edit push-button 3805 may open anedit combination window (as depicted in FIG. 39), which may allow theuser to edit impact groups for a given roadway configuration andaccident type combination. Once a combination has been selected andconfigured, an indicator adjacent to combination 3807 may indicate thatthe combination has been configured. For example, a checkbox may beassociated with each combination. In such embodiment, an “X” may appearin the check box to designate that a combination has been configured.

[0343]FIG. 39 is a screen shot of edit combination window 3925 from aknowledge acquisition utility according to one embodiment. The windowmay display a graphic representation of selected roadway configuration3927 and accident type 3929. For example, in FIG. 39 the accident typeshown is type 2, as shown in FIG. 4, and the roadway configuration is B,as shown in FIG. 5. A graphic representation of impact point diagram3931 (as shown in FIG. 8a) may also be displayed. The window may displaya text description of the accident type and roadway configurationcombination 3933. For example, as depicted in FIG. 39, the textdescription may be, “Left Turn Crossing Traffic on a Four WayIntersection.”

[0344] The user may also be provided with free-form text entry area 3935to provide comments directed to the combination. For example, a claimsorganization may desire a particular comment to be displayed to a userentering claims information containing the combination.

[0345] Edit combination window 3925 may also include a plurality ofimpact group text areas 3937 configured to display impact groups andassociated impact pairs. Associated with each impact group text area maybe impact group edit area 3939. Impact group edit area 3939 may allowthe user to enter one or more impact pairs to be associated with theimpact group.

[0346] Also associated with each impact group text area 3937 may beliability input text area 3940. Liability input text area 3940 mayinclude base liability field 3942, minimum liability field 3941, andmaximum liability field 3943 associated with an accident where vehicle Ahas the right of way and base liability field 3945, minimum liabilityfield 3944, and maximum liability field 3946 associated with an accidentwhere vehicle B has the right of way. In an embodiment, liability inputtext area 3940 may allow the user to input estimates of liability foronly one vehicle in the accident. For example, the liability input textarea may be related to the liability of vehicle A only. In alternateembodiments, liability input text area 3940 may allow the user to inputliability estimates for each vehicle. In either embodiment, liabilityinput text area 3940 may display an estimate associated with a secondvehicle. The liability estimate for the second vehicle may be determinedfrom the liability estimates provided for the first vehicle on theassumption that liability must total to 100% between the two vehicles.

[0347] In an embodiment, the user may edit factors associated with theroadway configuration and accident type combination by selecting Factorbutton 3947 in editing combination window 3925. Selecting Factor button3947 may bring up situational weight configuration window 3950, asdepicted in FIG. 40.

[0348]FIG. 40 is a screen shot of situational weight configurationwindow 4001 according to one embodiment. Situational weightconfiguration window 4001 may be used to configure situational weightsassociated with one or more factors for a given roadway configurationand accident type combination. The situational weights may be used toadjust the magnitude of the effect of the factors on liability, asdescribed with reference to FIG. 9a.

[0349] Situational weight configuration window 4001 may include a numberof columns. First vehicle column 4003 (e.g., column “A”) may includerows of data associated with a first vehicle (e.g., vehicle “A”). Secondvehicle column 4007 (e.g., column “B”) may include rows of dataassociated with a second vehicle (e.g., vehicle “B”). Factors column4005 may include rows containing text descriptions of various factors. Auser may select a situational weighting associated with each vehicle foreach factor listed in factors column 4005. For example, in row 4009, theuser has selected a “low” situational weight for vehicle A and a “high”situational weight for vehicle B for the speed factor.

[0350] In some embodiments, characteristics other than base liabilities,and factors may be adjusted by a knowledge acquisition utility. Thesecharacteristics include, but are not limited to, factor rankings,penalty values, range radii, range snap-tos, and absolute liabilityvalues. Alternatively, penalty values may not be tunable since they maybe estimated by a method as illustrated in the flow charts in FIGS. 10ato 36.

[0351]FIG. 41 is a screen shot of impact point display window 4100 of aknowledge acquisition utility for displaying impact point pairs for aroadway configuration and accident type combination according to oneembodiment. Impact point display window 4100 may provide a mechanism fordisplaying to the user of a knowledge acquisition utility what impactpoint combinations make up the impact group that is being considered bythe user. Impact point display window 4100 along with the roadwayconfiguration and accident type combination may provide a context withinwhich to make decisions about base liability.

[0352] Impact point display window 4100 displays two vehicles withlabeled impact points that belong to a given impact group. When the userselects an impact point on a first vehicle, the selected impact pointand corresponding impact points on a second vehicle may be highlighted.The selected impact point on the first vehicle and the highlightedimpact points on the second vehicle are pairs of impact points in theimpact group. For example, in impact point display window 4100, impactpoint (801) on the vehicle on the left is selected resulting in impactpoints (807), (808), and (809) being highlighted on the vehicle on theright. Therefore, (801,807), (801,808), and (801,809) are pairs ofimpact points.

[0353]FIG. 42 illustrates a screen shot of Claim Data window 4200. Claimdata window 4200 may be divided into a number of frames. Control frame4201 may provide access to basic controls for the application. Forexample standard pull down menus may provide access to file, edit, tooland help menus as are commonly used. Additionally, controls frame 4201may include a number of frame selection buttons (e.g., buttons 4203,4205, 4207, 4209, 4211, and 4213). Each frame selection button may causea data display frame 4250 to display different data. For example,selecting “ROW” frame selection button 4205 may cause data regardingright of way in a vehicle accident to be displayed. Claim data window4200 may also include claim data frame 4225. Claim data frame 4225 mayinclude basic claim data associated. In some embodiments, claim dataframe 4225 may continuously display the basic claim data while datadisplay frame 4250 allows other data related to the accident to beentered. Accessories frame 4275 may allow the user to select a number oftools that may be useful to the user as claim data is being entered.Legal reference button 4277 may allow the user to access informationrelated to the laws of a jurisdiction in which the accident took place.Calculator button 4279 may allow the user to access a calculatorfeature. Comments button 4281 may allow the user to access a free-formtext entry area in which comments may be entered. Show details button4283 may allow the user to access a summary report screen that displaysdetails related to the accident.

[0354] Claim data frame 4225 may contain data entry fields including,but not limited to, a claim number, a policy number, an accidentlocation, who reported the accident, whether police where called, whatbranch of the police was called, whether there were any injuries,whether there were fatalities, what state the accident took place, thedate of the accident, what time the accident took place, a policy startdate, a policy end date, who the accident was reported to, and adescription of the loss due to the accident. In an embodiment, a systemmay access a claims organization's database to retrieve informationrelated to a policy or an insured party based on a policy number. Forexample, the policy start and end dates may be automatically entered bythe system based on information in the claims organization's database.

[0355] Vehicles frame 4300, as depicted in FIG. 43, depicts a frame forentering data related to the vehicles involved in the accident accordingto one embodiment. Vehicles frame 4300 may appear in data display frame4250 if the user selects “Basic” frame selection button 4203 and vehicleinformation frame tab 4303. Other options available to the user when“Basic” frame selection button 4203 is selected may include partyinformation frame tab 4301 and additional information frame tab 4305.The user may enter the number of vehicles involved in the accident innumber field 4307. The user may enter the types of each vehicle in typefields 4309. In an embodiment, the number of type fields provided maycorrespond to the number of vehicles entered into vehicles field 4307.In some embodiments, two type fields 4309 may be provided by default. Insuch embodiments, a first type field may correspond to the insuredparty's vehicle type, and a second type field may correspond to theclaimant party's vehicle type. In such embodiments, additional typefields may be provided if more than two vehicles were involved in theaccident. Vehicle types may include, but are not limited to, anautomobile, a light truck, and another type.

[0356]FIG. 44 is a screen shot of additional information screen 4400.Additional information screen 4400 may be displayed when AdditionalInformation tab 4305 is selected. Additional information screen 4400 mayallow the user to enter a description of the accident in a free-formtext entry box.

[0357]FIG. 45 illustrates a screen shot of party information frame 4500.Party information frame 4500 may be displayed in data display frame 4250when Party Information tab 4301 is selected. The user may be prompted toselect a party involved in the accident from the menu that may include:Insured, Claimant, or Witness. The user may be presented with inputfields related to identifying information specific to the partyselected. For example, the user may enter the selected party's name,address, city, zip code, phone number, gender, and state into entryfields. The user may enter a description of the accident made by theparty into a free-form text entry box.

[0358]FIG. 46 depicts an embodiment of a legal reference screen. Thelegal reference screen may be accessed by selection of legal referencebutton 4277 in accessories frame 4275. The legal reference screen mayprovide the user with legal information for a jurisdiction in which theaccident occurred. The legal information may be pertinent to determiningliability in the accident. In an embodiment, the legal referenceinformation may be accessed from a subscription legal reference service,such as the Westlaw legal information service, available from West Groupof St. Paul, Minn. For example, laws pertaining to proportionateresponsibility for the jurisdiction may be displayed. The jurisdictionmay be determined by the state selected in claim data frame 4225.

[0359]FIG. 47 illustrates an embodiment of right of way data frame 4701that may be displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 incontrols frame 4201 and “Accident/Roadway” tab 4703. Based on dataprovided in right of way frame 4701, the system may determine a right ofway in an accident by a method described with reference to FIGS. 7a and7 b. In some embodiments, a right of way data frame may allow a user tomake a manual determination of right of way. Accident/Roadway tab 4703may present a user with a list of vehicles involved in accident 4705 andselection frames for accident type 4707 and roadway configuration 4709.Accident type frame 4707 may display a graphical representation of acurrently selected accident type. Roadway configuration frame 4709 maydisplay a graphical representation of a currently selected roadwayconfiguration. A user may select a different accident type or roadwayconfiguration by using selection buttons 4711 and 4713, respectively.

[0360]FIG. 48 illustrates an embodiment of traffic controls data frame4801 that may be displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 incontrols frame 4201 and “Traffic Controls” tab 4803. Using trafficcontrols data frame 480 1, the user may enter information regarding oneor more traffic controls that may have been present at the scene of anaccident. The user may indicate a primary and a secondary trafficcontrol in “primary traffic control” field 4805 and “secondary trafficcontrol” field 4807, respectively. The user may also indicate if atraffic control was disobeyed in field 4809. The user may also indicateif a traffic control was partially obscured in field 4811. The user mayindicate if a traffic control was completely obstructed or missing infield 4813. The user may indicate if an intersection appeareduncontrolled at the time of the accident in field 4815. Informationprovided in fields 4809, 4811, 4813, and 4815 may be used to determinethe effect of a missing or defective traffic control on liability on theaccident.

[0361]FIG. 49 illustrates an embodiment of impact points data frame 4901that may be displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 incontrols frame 4201 and “Impact Points” tab 4903. Using impact pointsframe 4901, the user may enter information regarding impact points foreach vehicle in the accident. In an embodiment, impact points data frame4901 may present the user with graphical representations of the vehiclesinvolved, referenced by numerals 4905 and 4907. In such embodiments, theuser may be able to select the impact points on the graphicalrepresentation.

[0362]FIG. 50 illustrates an embodiment of discords report frame 5001that may be displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 incontrols frame 4201 and “Discords” tab 5003. As a user selectsinformation describing an accident, two or more pieces of informationmay describe an implausible circumstance. For example, an accident typeof head on may be selected with a roadway configuration of merging fromthe left. This accident type and roadway configuration may be unlikelyto occur. Discord report frame 5001 may display a report indicating tothe user that an unlikely combination has been selected. This may allowthe user to change one or more selections, or to proceed to a manualassessment of the accident using the existing selections.

[0363]FIG. 51 illustrates an embodiment of factors input frame 5101 thatmay be displayed if a user selects gather 4207 in controls frame 4201.Factors input frame 5101 may provide input area 5105 for each vehicleinvolved in the accident. For example, as depicted in FIG. 51, factorsinput frame 5101 has an input area for a claimant and an insured. Theclaimant input area may be accessed by selecting claimant tab 5103. Eachinput area 5105 may include questions column 5107, which may listquestions to be asked during an accident investigation. Alternately, insome embodiments, questions column 5107 may provide a column of inputfields in which an adjuster may enter questions that were asked duringthe accident investigation. Some embodiments may include both an area toinput adjuster originated question and a list of system promptedquestions.

[0364] Questions asked may pertain to individual factors or groups offactors. Factors category selection area 5104 may allow the user toselect an individual factor or a category of factors for whichinformation may be input. For example, by selecting a visibility factorcategory from factor category selection area 5104, the user may beprovided a list of questions related to the visibility factor asdescribed with regard to FIG. 35.

[0365] Factors input area 5101 may also include one or more versionscolumns for entering responses to questions provided by various parties.For example, insured version column 5109 and claimant version column5111 are depicted in FIG. 51. If other parties provide answers to one ormore questions, additional version columns may be generated by selectingadd version button 5113. Alternately, a version column may be deleted byuse of delete version button 5115. Version columns may be used to enterresponses provided by a party regarding the questions in questionscolumn 5107.

[0366]FIG. 52 depicts an embodiment of conflict identification frame5201 according to one embodiment. Conflict identification frame 5201 mayassist an adjuster in identifying two or more answers from witnessesthat appear to be in conflict with one another. The assessment ofliability in a motor vehicle accident may involve analysis of multiplestatements of the description of an accident. In one embodiment, theconsistency between different witness statements may be assessed. Thestatements may be from the drivers or passengers of vehicles involved,bystanders and/or other drivers not involved in the accident. In someinstances, statements provided by these various witnesses may not agreeon all of the details of the accident. For example, details that may beimportant in assessing liability may include, but are not limited to,speed of the vehicles, whether brakes were applied, whether signalingwas improper or nonexistent, whether a vehicle yielded, the roadcondition, the road character, road defects, whether a traffic controlwas defective, visibility, whether a driver was wearing requiredcorrective lenses, distance between the vehicle before the accident,whether headlights were off, the presence of an animal/pedestrian/othervehicle, whether a vehicle made a sudden stop or swerve, whethertaillight or brake lights were off, whether a vehicle undertook unsafebacking, whether there was failure to take evasive action, whether avehicle had high beams on, and whether a lane change was improper.

[0367] The system may compare answers given by each witness to variousquestions to determine if inconsistencies exist. In an embodiment,inconsistencies may be identified even if witnesses were not asked thesame questions. For example, the system may flag an inconsistency if adriver answers no when asked, “Did you consume any alcohol prior to theaccident?” but a witness answers yes when asked, “Did the drive of thevehicle seem to be impaired?” Claims adjusters may use details that aredescribed inconsistently for informational purposes. The system may listinconsistencies identified in tabular form in conflict identificationframe 5201. Details with inconsistent versions may be noted in thetabulation of results. For example, question column 5203 may list ageneral question having inconsistent responses. Continuing the previousexample regarding alcohol, question column 5203 may contain thequestion, “Did the alcohol contribute to the accident?” Regarding thegeneral question in column 5203, source column 5205 may list each sourcethat provided an answer regarding the question. Response column 5207 maylist responses associated with each source. Conflict identificationframe 5201 may further provide the user with adjuster selection field5209. Adjuster selection field 5209 may allow the user to select aresponse that the adjuster desires to designate as accurate. In otherembodiments, the system may identify a most likely version of theaccident. The most likely version may correspond to the version with themost responses that are consistent across all of the witnesses. Forexample, if 5 witnesses were asked about a particular detail and threeprovided consistent answers, the system may flag these answers as themost likely version of the accident.

[0368]FIG. 53 depicts an embodiment of review frame 5301. After adetermination of a most likely version of the accident has been made,the user may be provided with review frame 5301 to review the responsesretained as the most likely version of the accident. The user may selecta category of factors to review from a list of categories of factors5303. Questions applicable to the selected category of factors may bedisplayed in questions column 5305. Answers from the determined mostlikely version of the accident may be displayed in answers columns 5307and 5309.

[0369] In certain circumstances, the system may not be able to determinean accurate estimate of liability. For example, highly unusualcircumstances of the accident may inhibit accurate assessment by thesystem. In such cases, manual assessment input screen 5401 may beprovided, as depicted in FIG. 54. Manual assessment input screen 5401may include insured liability field 5403 and claimant liability field5405. Additionally, manual assessment input screen 5401 may includecomments field 5407, where the user may provide comments regarding theneed for the manual assessment and/or circumstances related to theaccident.

[0370]FIG. 55 depicts Consultation Report frame 5501 according to oneembodiment. Consultation Report frame 5501 may include text box 5502 fordisplaying an Assessment Summary report. The Assessment Summary reportmay include a summary of data gathered and an assessment of liability.For example, the Assessment summary report may include, but is notlimited to, the Claim Number, the minimum and maximum percentage ofliability, the accident type, the roadway configuration, commentsregarding one or more factors, proximate cause, accident date, whetherthe accident involved injuries, whether the police were called, theaccident location, accident description, who the accident was reportedby and reported to, jurisdiction, relevant traffic laws of thejurisdiction, identity of the claims adjuster that addressed the claim,and vehicle information for each vehicle. Vehicle information mayinclude the Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”), make, model, year,impact point, vehicle type, right of way, speed, factors that apply tothe vehicle, and party who was driving the vehicle.

[0371] The user may indicate whether the assessment is complete orincomplete by using Assessment Status field 5503. The user may indicatewhether the claim has settled using Settled field 5505. A settlementdate may be entered in Settlement Date field 5511.

[0372] In an embodiment, notes may be added to an Assessment Summaryreport depending on the determination reached for each factor. Withreference to FIGS. 10a to 36, each terminus of each factor may have areport message code associated with it. Report message codes listed inan assessment report may aid the adjuster in explaining the assessmentand/or in negotiating a settlement. It may be especially helpful to theadjuster to have talking points reached in the assessment listed in theassessment report.

[0373] In an embodiment, other reports may be available to a user aswell. For example, a user may be able to configure ad hoc reportsrelated to historical accidents. The system may also provide one or morepre-configured reports. For example, a number of administrative orbusiness reports may be available. Such reports may include, but are notlimited to, reports pertaining to previous settlements reached,accidents claimed in a particular region or under a particular policy,and accidents associated with various categories of drivers or vehicles.

[0374] In another embodiment, a graphical user interface similar to thatillustrated in FIGS. 42 to 54 may be combined with accidentreconstruction methodology to assess the credibility of details inwitness accident descriptions. Accident reconstruction software may beapplied to determine details relating to speed, time, and distance ofthe vehicles involved in the accident. Such details may be inferred byaccident reconstruction software from physical measurements. Forexample, the impact speed may be inferred from physical damage tovehicles. The results of the accident reconstruction software may thenbe compared to the description of the corresponding detail in thewitness statements. The credibility of a witness statement may then beevaluated according to its consistency with the results of the accidentreconstruction software.

[0375] Accident reconstruction software may employ accidentreconstruction methods that may be dependent on a number of variables.Variables may be related to the preservation of the accident evidence,limitations in available specifications, and choice of accidentreconstruction techniques. Accident reconstruction techniques mayinclude damage-based and trajectory analysis techniques.

[0376] Variables related to accident evidence include the facts of theparticular case, which may be unique for the case. Generally, access tosome facts may not be under the direct control of an accidentreconstructionist, however, the reconstructionist may requestdocumentation and/or memorialization of these facts. The facts of a casemay form the basis for the reconstruction. Facts may be preserved ormemorialized in photos or measurements by police or other investigatorsat the time of the accident.

[0377] Accident evidence may include positions of rest of vehicles inthe accident (e.g., where they stop), tire marks, roadway markings,damage to vehicles, and damage to property. The memorialization of theseitems may vary widely between cases. First, accident investigators(e.g., police on the scene of the accident) may identify the importantaspects of the accident required to permit a detailed reconstruction.The determination of the requirements of a reconstruction may beincidental to other activities, for example, life-saving or therestoration of a safe environment to the accident site. An investigatormay try to preserve as much of the evidence as possible. In this initialphase of memorialization, photography, paint markings of vehicles'positions of rest, impact marking, and debris may be used to preserveevidence. It may be advantageous to photograph items of evidence beforeputting paint marks on. Techniques for measuring various items at thescene may include sight estimates, pacing, tape measurements, andsurveying type equipment. The variation in the accuracy of thesetechniques may detract from the ultimate accuracy of the speedestimates.

[0378] The vehicle damage data may not necessarily be preserved at thescene. Typically, vehicle damage may remain unchanged for weeks and/oryears at a separate location while either waiting for repair ordisposal.

[0379] Measurement of the extent of vehicle damage may be subject tosome variation. However, typically, the variation of results of adamage-data based reconstruction may mainly be due to differences in thereconstruction and interpretation techniques rather than to themeasurement devices used.

[0380] Measurements and vehicle specifications may be used as inputs tothe equation that permit application of various physical laws to theaccident reconstruction. Specifications may include the mass of thevehicles. Measurements may include the geometry of the collision.Determining the geometry of the collision may require the dimensions ofthe vehicles as inputs.

[0381] Additional specifications that may be used in a reconstructionmay include roadway friction coefficients, wheel drag, and wheel steer,which may be used primarily for trajectory-based analysis. The frictioncoefficient, drag, and steer on the vehicle as it travels from impact torest may be used to approximate the kinetic energy dissipated in atrajectory-based analysis.

[0382] The two general techniques for accident reconstruction includedamage-based and trajectory-based methods. Damage-based methodstypically reconstruct accidents based on damage to vehicles withoutapplying accident scene data. Damage-based only reconstructiontechniques generally assume a virtual linear relationship between theimpact speed changes versus residual or static crush. The relationshipis virtual since it involves equating the crush energy dissipated duringthe dynamic crushing of the vehicles to the residual or static crush.Damage-based reconstruction techniques may use a single full-scale crashtest data point for a given vehicle combined with an assumptionregarding a “no-damage” intercept to calculate custom-fittedcoefficients for use in individual case reconstructions. Such anassumption may generally be recognized as a crude first-approximationprocedure. Alternatively, some damage-based techniques may use multiplecrash tests on an individual vehicle to create multiple data points fora given vehicle.

[0383] A trajectory-based analysis may directly provide estimates of theimpact speed changes in the form of the differences between impact andseparation velocities for each vehicle. The general concept or principleof a trajectory-based reconstruction may be the conservation ofmomentum. The conservation of momentum, which is based on Newton'ssecond and third laws, is that the total momentum of an isolated systemof masses remains constant. The conservation of momentum principle mayserve as the theoretical basis for reconstruction of impact speeds invehicle-to-vehicle collisions. The principal stipulates that the systemmomentum preceding a collision and the system momentum after acollision, for example at separation, are conserved in the absence ofexternal forces. Therefore, if the individual speeds and directions ofmotion for each of the two vehicles in a collision to travel fromseparation to rest can be determined, then the direction and magnitudeof this system momentum may be used to determine the magnitudes anddirections of the velocities that may have existed prior to thecollision, which are the impact velocities. Generally, the magnitude ofexternal forces produced by the tires and other possible sources such asgouging and scraping of vehicle components on the ground during thecollision may be considered small when compared to the magnitude of theforces of the collision. However, it may be necessary to consider suchexternal forces for a comprehensive accident reconstruction.

[0384] Analyzing the total energy dissipated as the vehicles travel fromseparation to their positions of rest may be important for preparing acomprehensive trajectory-based reconstruction of a collision. Whenvehicles separate after a collision, they may move to rest positionsagainst resistance forces produced primarily by tire-to-ground friction.Secondary contacts, which may occur with roadside obstacles and/orterrain features, may play significant roles in the dissipation ofkinetic energy and may also produce redirection of the spinouttrajectories.

[0385] In another embodiment, a graphical user interface like thatillustrated in FIGS. 42 to 54 may be combined with a credibilityassessment method to create a reliable accident description. The detailsrelevant to the accident such as those described herein may be tested bya credibility assessment method such as the accident reconstructionsoftware as described herein. The most credible version of the detailsmay then be combined into a single, reliable version of an accidentdescription.

Further Improvements

[0386]FIG. 56 illustrates a screen shot of another embodiment of agraphical user interface for a system for estimating liability in avehicle accident. Control frame 5601 may provide access to basiccontrols for the application. Controls frame 5601 may include a numberof window selection buttons (e.g., buttons 5603, 5605, 5607, 5609, 5611,and 5613). Each frame selection button may cause a data display frame5619 to display different data. A user may select the frame selectionbuttons after entering a claim number in free form entry text box 5615and selecting the “Get Claim” push button 5617. FIG. 56 also includesaccessories frame 5621. Accessories frame 5621 may include a number offrame selection buttons (e.g., 5623, 5625, 5627, 5629, 5631, and 5633).For example, Speed Calc button 5627 may allow a user to perform speed,time, and distance calculations relating to an accident. In addition,Distance Calc button 5629 may allow a user to estimate a distance fromthe front of a vehicle to the start of a first lane of an intersection.

[0387]FIG. 57 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of claim dataframe 5701 that is similar to FIG. 42. Claim data frame 5701 may beaccessed by selecting the Claim Data frame selection button 5605 in FIG.56. The claim data window may include several data frames that includean FNOL (first notice of loss) frame, a Parties frame, and an AdditionalInformation frame. A data frame in the claim data window may be viewedby selecting the appropriate tab, 5703, 5705, or 5707. For example, theFNOL frame 5709 may be viewed by selecting FNOL tab 5703. FNOL frame5703 includes free form entry text boxes for entering informationrelating to the accident. For example, the information shown in the FNOLdata frame is similar to that shown in Claim Data frame 4225 in FIG. 42.

[0388]FIG. 58 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of Claim Dataframe 5701, similar to FIG. 45, which depicts Parties frame 5801. TheParties frame may be viewed by selecting Parties tab 5705 in FIG. 57.The Parties frame includes a number of free form entry text boxes forentering information concerning parties involved in an accident. Theinformation is similar to that that shown in data display frame 4250 inFIG. 45. The Parties frame also includes Add Party Selection button5803. When a user selects the Add Party Selection button, Add Partypop-up window 5901 depicted in FIG. 59 may be displayed. The Add Partypop-up window may include additional parties 5903 that a user may add tothe liability analysis. The additional parties may include, for example,a claimant passenger, an insured passenger, a witness, or a namedinsured. A user may select one or more additional parties and select OKbutton 5905 to add the one or more parties. If a user selects Cancelbutton 5907, no parties may be added.

[0389]FIG. 60 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of Claim Dataframe 5701, which depicts Additional Information frame 6001. TheAdditional Information frame may be viewed by selecting AdditionalInformation tab 5707. As described in reference to FIG. 44, Additionalinformation frame 6001 may allow the user to enter a description of theaccident in a free-form text entry box. The user may enter text byselecting Edit push button 6003.

[0390]FIG. 61 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of AccidentInfo window 6101. Accident Info window 6001 allows users to enterinformation relating to roadway configuration, accident type, and impactpoints. Accident Info window 6101 may be accessed by selecting frameselection button 5607 in FIG. 56. Accident Info window 6101 may includedata frames such as an Accident/Roadway data frame and an Impact Pointsdata frame. Accident/Roadway data frame 6103 may be accessed byselecting Accident/Roadway tab 6105. Data frame 6103 may include severalwindows for viewing and selecting accident types and roadwayconfigurations for a claimant and an insured. In one embodiment, window6109 may allow a user to select an accident type. Window 6109 mayinclude graphical images of accident type diagrams depicted in FIG. 4. Auser may select one of the graphical images 6111 in window 6109 thatcorresponds to a desired accident type.

[0391] In some embodiments, window 6113 may allow a user to associatethe claimant and insured with the vehicles in the accident typesdepicted in window 6109. Two graphical images of the selected accidenttype may be displayed in window 6113. One of the graphical images mayinclude one arrow or diagram representing a vehicle labeled as aclaimant and the other arrow or diagram labeled as an insured. The othergraphical images may have the labels reversed. For example, accidenttype 1 displayed as image 6115 is the selected accident type in FIG. 61.Images 6117 and 6119 of accident type 1 with labeled arrows aredisplayed in window 6113. The user may then select one of the images.Graphical image 6121 of the selected accident type may be displayed inwindow 6123.

[0392] In an embodiment, window 6125 may allow a user to select aroadway configuration. Window 6125 may include graphical images ofroadway configuration diagrams depicted in FIG. 5. A user may select oneof the graphical images 6127 in window 6125 that corresponds to aroadway configuration. Graphical image 6129 of the selected roadwayconfiguration may be displayed in window 6131.

[0393]FIG. 62 illustrates a screen shot of impact points data frame 6201that is similar to FIG. 49. Impact points data frame 6201 may beaccessed by selecting Impact Points tab 6107. Data frame 6201 mayinclude drop down menus (e.g., 6203, 6205, 6207) for selecting thenumber and types of vehicles involved in an accident. FIG. 62 may alsoinclude graphical images 6211 and 6215 for selecting impact points ofthe insured and claimant vehicles. Graphical images 6211 and 6215 mayinclude impact points labeled in a manner similar to FIG. 8a. Drop downmenus 6209 and 6213 may allow a user to select the impact points for theinsured and the claimant.

[0394] A number of details relating to an accident may be important forassessing liability in an accident. Information relating to an accidentis typically collected during the course of an accident investigation.An insurance adjuster may obtain information relating to an accidentfrom a number of sources. An embodiment of a method of estimatingliability for an accident using a computer system may include generatingone or more questions relating to an accident. A user may provide one ormore sets of answers corresponding to the one or more questions. A setof answers may include answers to a question obtained from one or moresources. For example, the one or more sources may include an insuranceadjuster or user, an insured, a claimant, witnesses, passengers, apolice report, physical evidence, a weather report, and an accidentreconstruction report. The method may further include estimating theeffect of at least one factor on liability using at least one answer.

[0395] In one embodiment, a question may be generated on one or moretopics relating to the accident. For example, topics may include trafficcontrol, right of way, environment, roadway characteristics, driveraction, driver condition, and vehicle equipment. A user may select ananswer from the set of answers obtained from the one or more sources. Inan embodiment, selecting an answer from the set of answers may includeidentifying inconsistencies in the answers obtained from two or moresources and selecting the most reliable answer. The selected answer maycorrespond to one of the sources that supplied the answer. In oneembodiment, the user may select the answer supplied by the user.

[0396]FIG. 63a illustrates an embodiment of Investigation window 6301that may be displayed if a user selects Investigation frame selectionbutton 5609 in controls frame 5601. FIG. 63 may include pull down menu6303 for selecting the source from which information is obtained. Thesource from which information is obtained may be referred to as the“version party.” A “subject party” refers to the party about which aquestion is asked. A subject party may be either the insured or theclaimant. For example, an insured is the subject party in a questionthat asks whether the insured consumed alcohol prior to an accident. Asubject party passenger refers to a passenger in the vehicle of asubject party. The Topic selection area 6305 may include a list oftopics relating to the accident. A user may select a topic to view alist of questions relating to the topic. In one embodiment, anindicator, for example, indicator 6307, may appear adjacent to the textof a topic in area 6305 when all answers have been provided to thequestions corresponding to the topic.

[0397] In one embodiment, window 6301 includes question and answer area6309 for displaying questions and entering answers. Column 6311 includesquestions corresponding to topics listed in area 6305. For example,questions 6313 relating to Roadway Details are listed under label 6315.Roadway Details include roadway characteristics that are discussedherein. In one embodiment, an indicator such as indicator 6317 mayappear adjacent to a question to indicate that an answer has not beenprovided for a question. Area 6309 may further include columns 6319,6321, and 6323 for entering answers obtained from sources to thequestions in column 6311. For example, a user may select column 6319 toenter answers to questions obtained from the insured. Area 6309 mayinclude row 6325 for indicating the status of the investigation withrespect to a particular source. For example, if an adjuster has obtainedall answers that a source is able to provide, the investigation iscomplete with respect to that source. However, if an adjuster may beable to obtain additional answers from a source, then the investigationmay be in progress. In an embodiment, an indicator such as indicator6327 may appear in a column to indicate that one or more answers havenot been obtained from a source. Answers to questions may be enteredinto data entry fields 6329. Data entry fields 6329 may be free formentry text boxes. Alternatively, data entry fields 6329 may be pull downmenus that may include two or more answers to a question. In someembodiments, a user may be inhibited from entering an answer in a dataentry field for a particular question and source, for example, dataentry fields 6331. “N/A” appears in data entry fields 6331 to indicatethat a user may not enter an answer.

[0398] In certain embodiments, at least one answer to a question may beassociated with a set of additional questions. The set of additionalquestions may be generated by the computer system when the at least oneanswer is selected by a user. The user may then provide a set of answerscorresponding to the set of additional questions to the computer system.The method may further include using at least one answer to estimate theeffect of a factor on liability in the accident.

[0399] In some embodiments, the set of additional questions generatedmay depend on the source of the answer. For example, the set ofadditional questions generated when the version party is the same as thesubject party may be different from the additional questions generatedwhen the version party is not the same as the subject party.

[0400]FIG. 63b is a screenshot that depicts an embodiment ofInvestigation Window 6301. In FIG. 63b, Column 6319 is selected foranswering questions obtained from the insured. The screenshot alsoillustrates answering questions relating to the alcohol topic underlabel 6335. Question 6339, “INSD consumed alcohol?” asks the insuredwhether he/she consumed alcohol prior to the accident. Pull down menu6341 illustrates the set of answers to question 6339: “Yes”, “No”, and“Unknown.”

[0401]FIG. 63c is a screenshot that depicts an embodiment ofInvestigation Window 6301 with an answer to question 6339 selected. Dataentry field 6343 illustrates that “Yes” is the selected answer. Theanswer “Yes” to question 6339 is associated with a set of additionalquestions. Set of additional questions 6345 are generated under question6339 as shown in FIG. 63c.

[0402]FIG. 63d is a screenshot that depicts an embodiment ofInvestigation Window 6301 with answers to some of the set of additionalquestions 6345 selected. For example, data entry field 6349 illustratesthat “No” is the selected answer for question 6347. The answer “No” toquestion 6347 is associated with set of additional questions 6351, whichare generated in response to the selected answer.

[0403]FIG. 63e is a screenshot that depicts an embodiment ofInvestigation Window 6301. FIG. 63e depicts a selected answer in dataentry field 6355, “Yes” to question 6353, “INSD administered BAC test?.”The selected answer “Yes” is associated with additional question 6357,“INSD's BAC Result”, that was generated due to the selection of “Yes.”An answer of “0.02” depicted in data entry field 6359 is selected forquestion 6357. The selected answer “0.02” did not generate additionalquestions.

[0404] The set of additional questions generated by selecting answersmay be depicted by a flow chart. FIG. 63f depicts a flow chart of thequestions generated relating to the Alcohol topic. Each of the steps inthe flow chart represents a question that may be displayed. Step 6361represents the “Alcohol Consumed” question. “VP”, which refers toversion party, corresponds to the sources that may be asked a particularquestion. The one or more sources may include, for example, subjectparty (SP), subject party passenger (SPP), police report (PR), and otherparty (OP). Other party refers to the party other than the subject partythat is involved in an accident. For example, if the version party isthe insured, the other party is the claimant. The “Alcohol Consumed”question asks whether a subject party consumed alcohol prior to anaccident. Step 6361 indicates that “Alcohol Consumed” may be asked ofall sources: SP, SPP, PR, and OP. If the answer to the “AlcoholConsumed” question is “No”, then no further questions are generated, asshown at step 6399. If the answer to the “Alcohol Consumed” question is“Yes”, then a set of additional questions may be generated, as shown bysteps, 6363, 6379, 6381, 6385, 6387, 6389, 6391, 6393, 6395, and 6397.The questions at steps 6363, 6365, 6369, and 6375 may be generated andasked of all sources.

[0405] If the selected answer to the question in step 6363, “Cited forimpairment”, is “Yes”, then no further questions are generated and a 100percent shift in liability to the subject party may be made, as shown bystep 6367. If the selected answer is “No”, then step 6365 indicates thatthe question “Other Indication of Impairment” may be asked of allsources. If the selected answer the question is “No”, then a high shiftin liability is made to the subject party, a shown by step 6371. If theanswer to the question is “Yes”, then step 6369 illustrates that thequestion of what “Other Indication of Impairment” was “Based On” may begenerated. Step 6373 indicates that a 70 percent shift in liability maybe made to the subject party if the other indication of impairment wasbased on BAC (blood alcohol content). If the other indication ofimpairment was based on “Statements or Other”, then the version party isasked to “Describe Statements/Other” as shown by step 6375. Step 6377indicates that a 70 percent shift in liability may then be made to thesubject party.

[0406] Additionally, steps 6379, 6381, 6385, 6389, 6393, and 6397include questions that are generated if the selected answer to the“Alcohol Consumed” question is “Yes.” Step 6379 indicates that allsources may be asked if a “Field Sobriety Test was Administered.” Step6381 indicates that all sources may be asked if a “BAC Test wasAdministered.” If the selected answer is “Yes”, then the “BAC Result”question is generated for the subject party, police report, and othersource. Step 6385 indicates that the question “In What Time Period” was“Alcohol Consumed” is generated for the subject party, subject partypassenger, police report, and other source. Step 6387 indicates that thequestion of the amount and type of alcohol consumed is generated for thesubject party, subject party passenger, police report, and other source.Step 6389 indicates that the question regarding the time since alcoholwas consumed is generated for the subject party, subject partypassenger, police report, and other source. Step 6391 indicates that thequestion of where the alcohol was acquired is generated for the subjectparty, subject party passenger, police report, and other source. Step6393 indicates that a question of where the alcohol was consumed isgenerated for the subject party, subject party passenger, police report,and other source. Step 6395 indicates that the weight of the subjectparty is asked of the subject party, police report, and the othersource. Step 6397 indicates that the question of who served the alcoholis asked of the subject party, subject party passenger, police report,and the other source.

[0407]FIG. 64 illustrates an embodiment of Resolution window 6401 thatmay be displayed if a user selects Investigation frame selection button5611 in controls frame 5601. A user may use Window 6401 to select ananswer from the set of answers provided by two or more sources for usein estimating liability in an accident. Data entry field 6402 may be apull down menu that includes answers provided by the sources. A user mayresolve inconsistencies in a set of answers provided by the sources. Forexample, a user may select one of the answers. Window 6401 may includecolumn 6403, entitled “Final”, that includes answers to be used forestimating liability. Inconsistencies between answers from differentsources may be resolved in column 6403. For example, as illustrated bydata fields 6405, 6407, and 6409, the sources corresponding to columns6411 and 6415 have selected answers inconsistent with the selectedanswer of the source in column 6413 for question 6417. Indicator 6419indicates the presence of an inconsistency among the answers to question6417. Data entry field 6402 indicates that the selected answer toquestion 6417 for use in estimating liability is “Green Light.” In someembodiments, a user may provide an answer for use in estimatingliability different from the answers provided by the sources.

[0408]FIG. 65a illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of Reportwindow 6501. Report window 6501 may be accessed by selecting Reportframe selection button 5611 in FIG. 56. The Report window may includeseveral data frames such as Consultation Report frame and Settlementinfo. frame. A data frame in the Report window may be viewed byselecting an appropriate tab. For example, Consultation Report frame6507 may be displayed by selecting tab 6505. Frame 6507 may include asummary of information relating to the accident and liabilityassessment. The summary may include claim data, accident information,right of way, and information obtained from the accident investigationdepicted in FIGS. 63a-e. The summary may also include recommended rangesof liability for the insured and claimant.

[0409] In addition, the summary may include a list of questions fromInvestigation Window 6301 that have conflicting answers, unansweredquestion, and unknown questions. An “unknown question” is a questionthat was not answered in the Investigation window because the answer wasnot known by the source interviewed. FIG. 65b depicts an embodiment of areport that includes a list of questions that have conflicting answersfrom sources. Questions that have conflicting answers are listed incolumn 6511. Column 6513 and 6515 indicate whether a conflict has beenresolved or unresolved. Conflicts may be resolved in column 6403 in FIG.64. Indicator 6517 in column 6513 indicates that question 6519 has beenresolved.

[0410]FIG. 65c depicts a table with unanswered and unknown questions forseveral sources. Column 6521 includes a list of questions withunanswered and unknown questions for one or more sources. Columns 6523,6525, 6527, and 6529 correspond to columns 6403, 6411, 6413, and 6415 inFIG. 64. For example, indicator 6531 indicates that question 6535 wasunanswered from the source corresponding to column 6529. Additionally,indicator 6533 indicates that question 6537 is an unknown question forthe source corresponding to column 6525.

[0411]FIG. 66 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of Reportwindow 6501 with Settlement Info. data frame 6601 displayed. SettlementInfo. data frame 6601 may be displayed by selecting tab 6509. Frame 6601may be used to enter information relating to a settlement between aclaimant and an insured. Frame 6601 may include pull down menu 6603 forselecting a claim study type. The liability of the insured in asettlement may be entered into free form entry text box 6605. In anotherembodiment, a dollar amount of a settlement for one or more types ofsettlement types may be entered. As shown by text 6607, settlement typesmay include, but are not limited to, bodily injury, property damage,uninsured motorist, and under insured motorist. Settlement amounts forthe one or more settlement types may be entered in free form entry textboxes 6609. The date of the settlement of the one or more settlementtypes may be entered into pull down menus 6611.

[0412]FIG. 67 is an illustration of a screen shot of Legal Referencewindow 6700 which may be displayed by selecting frame selection button5625 in FIG. 56. Legal Reference window 6700 allows a user to viewstatutes relating to liability assessment by state. A state may beselected using pull down menu 6703. The type of statute may be selectedusing pull down menu 6705. After selecting the state and type of statutea user may select push button 6707 to display the state statute ofinterest. The statute is displayed in frame 6701. A user may advancethrough the selected statute by selecting push button 6711.Alternatively, the user may display a previous frame of the selectedstatute by selecting push button 6713. A user may close Legal Referencewindow 6700 by selecting push button 6709.

[0413]FIG. 68 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment ofSpeed/Time/Distance Calculator window 6800 which may be displayed byselecting frame selection button 5627. Window 6800 may include textboxes 6801 for speed in miles per hour, 6803 for travel distance infeet/sec, 6805 for braking distance for autos in feet, 6807 distancetraveled during driver reaction time in feet, 6809 for stopping distancefor autos in feet, 6811 for braking distance for trucks in feet, and6813 for stopping distance for trucks in feet including reaction time.In one embodiment, text box 6801 may be a text entry box and text boxes6803, 6805, 6807, 6809,6811, and 6813 may be disabled or read-only.Values in text boxes 6803, 6805, 6807, 6809, 6811, and 6813 may becalculated using the value in text box 6801. In other embodiments, oneof the text boxes 6803, 6805, 6807, 6809, 6811, or 6813 may be textentry boxes and the values in the other text boxes including text box6801 may be calculated from the value in the text entry box.

[0414] In one embodiment, window 6800 may include increment/decrementbar 6815. A user may drag bar 6815 downward to increment the speed intext box 6801 or drag the bar upward to decrement the speed in text box6801. The values in text boxes 6803, 6805, 6807, 6809, 6811, and 6813may change in response to an increment or decrement in speed. A user mayclose window 6800 by selecting push button 6817.

[0415]FIG. 69 illustrates a screen shot of Distance Calculator window6900 according to one embodiment. Window 6900 may be displayed byselecting frame selection button 5629. Window 6900 may include graphicalimage 6901 that may depict an approximate representation of an accidentscene. Window 6900 may be used to estimate a distance from the front ofa vehicle at or near an intersection to the start of the firstintersecting lane. For example, for a vehicle with its front at stopline 6903, window 6900 may calculate distance 6905. Image 6901 mayinclude stop line 6903, intersecting stop line 6905, crosswalk 6909,intersecting crosswalk 6907, shoulder 6911, intersecting shoulder 6913,intersecting bicycle/multi-use lane 6915, lane 6917, intersecting lane6919, and sidewalk 6921.

[0416] In one embodiment, the distance from the front of a vehicle tothe start of a first intersecting lane may be determined for severaltypes of intersections. For example, in FIG. 69, a user may select 6923one of four types of intersections. A graphical image of the selectedintersection may be displayed. For example, “Large intersection withcrosswalk” is selected in FIG. 69 and is displayed as graphical image6901. As FIG. 69 shows, a “Small intersection with crosswalk,” a “Smallintersection without crosswalk,” and “Uncontrolled intersection” may beselected. In some embodiments, other types of intersections may beselected.

[0417] In certain embodiments, calculation of the distance from thefront of a vehicle to the start of the first intersecting lane mayrequire input of one or more intersection parameters. Intersectionparameters may include, but are not limited to, a distance from the stopposition to a stop line, a distance from a stop position to a sidewalk,a distance from a stop line to a crosswalk, a width of a crosswalk, awidth of a sidewalk, a distance from a stop line to an intersectingshoulder, a distance from a crosswalk to an intersecting shoulder, adistance from a sidewalk to an intersecting shoulder, a width of anintersecting shoulder, and a width of an intersecting bike/multi-uselane. FIG. 69 includes free form entry text boxes 6925 for enteringintersection parameters for use in calculating the distance from thefront of a vehicle to the start of the first intersecting lane. One ormore of the free form entry text boxes for the intersection parametersmay be disabled if the corresponding intersection parameters may not berelevant to the type of intersection selected. For example, a distancefrom a stop position to sidewalk is not relevant for a largeintersection with a crosswalk, therefore, text entry box 6927 isdisabled. When the user enters the relevant intersection parameters intofree form entry text boxes, the distance from the front of a vehicle tothe start of the first intersecting lane may be calculated. The distancemay be displayed in text box 6929. Window 6900 may be closed byselecting push button 6931.

[0418] In certain embodiments, a graphical image of an accident scenemay be depicted. The graphical image may be used as a visual aid inliability assessment. For example, the graphical image may be used inanswering questions relating to roadway details or roadwaycharacteristics in Investigation window 6501 shown in FIG. 65. In anembodiment, the roadway details or roadway characteristics may be usedin a method of assessing liability using the speed and time and distancetraveled by vehicles in an accident as depicted by the flow chart inFIG. 72. A graphical image may correspond to a particular combination ofaccident type and roadway configuration. FIG. 70 illustrates a screenshot of an embodiment of Accident Scene window 7000 for accident type 3from FIG. 4 and roadway configuration B from accident type 5. AccidentScene window 7000 may be accessed by selecting frame selection button5631 in FIG. 56. Accident Scene window 7000 may provide a user with anapproximate representation of an accident scene corresponding to anaccident type and roadway configuration combination. In one embodiment,Accident Scene window 7000 may depict diagrams of the insured and theclaimant's vehicles and their trajectories. For example, diagram 7001may represent claimant's vehicle and trajectory 7003 may correspond tothe trajectory of the claimant vehicle. Similarly, diagram 7005 mayrepresent an insured's vehicle and trajectory 7007 may represent thetrajectory of the insured's vehicle. In addition, window 7000 may alsoinclude a number of roadway characteristics that may be common in theparticular accident type and roadway configuration combination. Forexample, window 7000 depicts lanes 7009, stop line 7011, median 7013,sidewalk 7015, shoulder 7017, and multi-use lane 7019 may be depicted inwindow 7000

[0419]FIG. 71 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of CommentsFacility window 7100. Comments Facility window 7100 may be accessed byselecting frame selection button 5633 in FIG. 56. In an embodiment,window 7100 may allow a user to enter comments relating to one or moretopics relating to the accident and/or liability assessment. SelectTopic text box 7101 may include a list of topics that correspond tocomments that have previously been entered by a user. Add Topic pushbutton 7103 may allow a user to create a new topic for comments. Inaddition, a user may select a comment from the list in text box 7101 toview the comments on a selected topic. Comments text box 7105 maydisplay previously entered comments on a topic. To view a previouslyentered comment on a topic, a user may select View Details push button7107. Alternatively, text box 7105 may be used to enter comments on anew topic or add to comments on an existing topic. A user may entercomments by selecting Add Comments push button 7109.

[0420] In one embodiment, the speed, time, and distance of vehiclesinvolved in an accident may be used to assess the liability of a vehiclein an accident. For example, analysis of the trajectories of thevehicles may indicate whether a vehicle may have avoided an accident. Inone embodiment, a method of using a computer system for assessingliability in a vehicle accident may include estimating a theoreticalpath of a reference vehicle. A “reference” or “timing” vehicle refers toa vehicle that is used to set one or more times during an accident. Themethod may also include estimating a theoretical path of a reactingvehicle. The “reacting” vehicle reacts to the danger of an accident withthe reference vehicle. The opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoidthe accident may then be assessed. The method may further includeassessing a contribution to liability to the reacting vehicle based onthe opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident.

[0421] An embodiment of a method of assessing liability using the speed,time, and distance of vehicles in an accident is depicted by the flowchart in FIG. 72. In step 7201, the method may include selecting areference vehicle. The one or more times that the reference vehicle isused to set may include the starting time of the accident, a perceptiontime, and the total time of the accident. At step 7203, theoreticalpaths of the vehicles in the accident may be estimated. A theoreticalpath for a vehicle may be estimated from a starting point of the vehicleand an intended end position of the vehicle. An intended end positionrefers to the position of a vehicle, past the location of the accident,that the vehicle may have been at had the accident not occurred. In someembodiments, a theoretical path may be approximated by a straight linefor a vehicle traveling in substantially a straight trajectory. In otherembodiments, a theoretical path may be approximated by a curve, such asan ellipse, for a turning vehicle. In addition, a collision area may beestimated using the theoretical paths of the vehicles at step 7205. A“collision area” refers to an area of the roadway where there is a highprobability that vehicles may collide. The collision area includespositions that the reference vehicle and reacting vehicle are likely tooccupy at impact.

[0422] In an embodiment, a perception time for a reference vehicle maybe estimated at step 7207. A “perception time” may refer to a time for areference vehicle to travel from a perception point to a collision area.A “perception point” is the point on the trajectory of the referencevehicle at which the reacting vehicle should first notice danger. Atstep 7209, a location of the reacting vehicle may be estimated using theperception point and the perception time. A time for the referencevehicle to clear the collision area starting from the location of thecollision may then be estimated at step 7211. At step 7213, a time for areacting vehicle to reach the collision area using the time for thereference vehicle to clear the collision area may be estimated. At step7215, an opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident maybe assessed. In addition, an effect on liability of the opportunity ofthe reacting vehicle to avoid the accident may be assessed at step 7217.

[0423]FIG. 73 depicts an illustration of intersection 7300 that includesintersection box 7301 with a coordinate system. Origin 7303 is locatedat the lower left hand corner of intersection box 7301. In oneembodiment, an intersection box may be defined by the outer edges of theoutermost lanes. The coordinate of any point in the intersection orroadways may be referred to by the name of the point followed by “x” or“y.” Roadway 7305 may include one or more lanes 7307. Lanes may bespecified in one half lane increments. For example, lane 1 may be in themiddle of lane 7313 and 1.5 may be on the line separating lane 7313 andlane 7315. A roadway may also include median 7309 that separates traffictraveling in opposite directions. The roadway may also include stoplines 7311 that delineate a safe location for a vehicle to stop beforethe intersection.

[0424] In several of the accident types shown in FIG. 4, one of thevehicles, A, is traveling in a straight trajectory and another vehicle,B, is turning and traveling in a curved trajectory. As used herein,vehicle A may be referred to as the “straight vehicle” and vehicle B maybe referred to as the “turning vehicle.” FIG. 74 illustrates thetrajectories of a straight vehicle and a turning vehicle in an accidentthat correspond to accident type 3 in FIG. 4. Diagram 7401 representsvehicle A with a straight trajectory at a position prior to a collisiontraveling in collision lane 7427. As used herein, a “collision lane” isthe lane occupied by the straight vehicle and in which the vehiclescollide. Diagram 7403 represents vehicle A at the position of acollision. Diagram 7405 represents vehicle A in a position it may haveoccupied had the collision not occurred. Diagram 7405 may represent anintended end position of vehicle A. Diagram 7407 represents a vehicle Bat a position prior to a collision. Diagram 7409 represents vehicle B atthe position of the collision. Diagram 7411 represents vehicle B in aposition it may have occupied had the collision not occurred. Diagram7411 may represent an intended end position of vehicle B.

[0425] In some embodiments, the trajectory of at least one point on avehicle may represent the path of the vehicle. Vehicle points maycorrespond to impact points as shown in FIG. 8a. For example, diagram7407 includes vehicle point 7413 with trajectory 7415, vehicle point7417 with trajectory 7419, and vehicle point 7421 with trajectory 7423.In certain embodiments, trajectories of vehicle points on vehicle B maybe used to define collision area 7425. Vehicle point 7421 may correspondto the collision point of the turning vehicle and the straight vehicle.

[0426] In an embodiment, speed, time, and distance analysis of anaccident for the purpose of liability assessment may be applied to atleast one of the accident types illustrated in FIG. 4. FIGS. 75a-gillustrate application of speed, time, and distance analysis of vehiclesin an accident for several accident types. FIGS. 75a-c representaccident types in which vehicle B is crossing traffic. FIGS. 75d-grepresent accident types in which vehicle B is entering traffic. FIG.75a illustrates accident type 2 from FIG. 4. Diagram 7501 representsvehicle B prior to the collision. The path of vehicle B is depicted bytrajectory 7505. Diagram 7503 represents vehicle B in an intended endposition. Similarly, diagram 7507 represents vehicle A prior to acollision. Diagram 7509 represents vehicle A in an intended endposition. Diagram 7511 represents the collision area.

[0427]FIG. 75b illustrates accident type 3 from FIG. 4. Diagram 7513represents turning vehicle B prior to the collision. The path of vehicleB is depicted by trajectory 7517. Diagram 7515 represents turningvehicle B in an intended end position. Similarly, diagram 7519represents vehicle A prior to a collision. Diagram 7521 representsvehicle A in an intended end position. Diagram 7523 represents thecollision area.

[0428]FIG. 75c illustrates accident type 17 from FIG. 4. Diagram 7547represents vehicle B prior to the collision. The path of vehicle B isdepicted by trajectory 7551. Diagram 7549 represents B in an intendedend position. Similarly, diagram 7553 represents vehicle A prior to acollision. Diagram 7555 represents vehicle A in an intended endposition. Diagram 7557 represents the collision area.

[0429]FIGS. 75d and 75 e illustrate embodiments of accident type 4 fromFIG. 4. FIG. 75d depicts a vehicle B crossing traffic into a lanedifferent from a vehicle A in traffic. Alternatively, FIG. 75e depicts avehicle B entering traffic into the same lane as a vehicle A in traffic.Diagram 7525 represents vehicle B prior to the collision. The path ofvehicle B is depicted by trajectory 7529. Diagram 7527 representsturning vehicle B in an intended end position. Similarly, diagram 7531represents vehicle A prior to a collision. Diagram 7533 representsvehicle A in an intended end position. Diagram 7535 represents thecollision area. In the case of FIGS. 75e and 75 g, the collision areamay not terminate on the right side because the intended end position ofvehicle B does not clear the collision lane.

[0430]FIGS. 75f and 75 g illustrate embodiments of accident type 5 fromFIG. 4. FIG. 75f depicts a vehicle B crossing traffic into a lanedifferent from a vehicle A in traffic. Alternatively, FIG. 75g depicts avehicle B entering traffic into the same lane as a vehicle A in traffic.Diagram 7537 represents vehicle B prior to the collision. The path ofvehicle B is depicted by trajectory 7541. Diagram 7539 representsvehicle B in an intended end position. Similarly, diagram 7543represents a vehicle A prior to a collision. Diagram 7545 representsvehicle A in an intended end position. Diagram 7547 represents thecollision area.

[0431] An embodiment of the method depicted in FIG. 72 may includeselecting 7201 a reference vehicle. In one embodiment, a referencevehicle may be selected from the vehicles involved in an accident. Thereference vehicle may be vehicle A in accident types 2, 3, 4, and 5shown in FIG. 4. Alternatively, the reference vehicle may be vehicle Bin accident types 2, 3, 4, and 5 shown in FIG. 4. The starting time fortrajectory analysis may be determined, for example, using a landmark,such as a stop line, that the reference vehicle passes.

[0432] In some embodiments, the selection of the reference vehicle maybe determined by the reaction of a vehicle to the danger of a collision.For example, if the reaction of either vehicle A or vehicle B, but notboth, is braking from a constant rate of speed or braking fromaccelerating, then the vehicle that is not braking may be the referencevehicle. Alternatively, if the reaction of both vehicle A and vehicle Bis continuing from a constant rate of speed or continuing fromaccelerating and the right of way is known, the vehicle that does nothave the right of way may be the reference vehicle.

[0433] In one embodiment, speed, time and distance analysis may includeestimating 7203 the theoretical paths of the vehicles in the accident.For example, the theoretical paths of vehicle A and vehicle B in theaccident type diagrams of FIG. 4 may be estimated. A flow chartillustrating a method for estimating the theoretical paths of vehiclesis shown in FIG. 76a. At step 7601, the coordinates of the start pointof at least one point on vehicles A and B may be estimated. Thecoordinates of the intended end position of at least one point on thevehicles may be estimated at step 7603. The method may further includedetermining mathematical relationships for the theoretical paths of aleast one point on at least one of the vehicles using the start pointand intended end positions.

[0434] In an embodiment, the (x, y) coordinate of at least one point ona vehicle at the start point and intended end positions may beestimated. The (x, y) coordinate of at least one point and theorientation of the vehicle may then be used to estimate the coordinatesof any other point on the vehicle. The orientation of a vehicle inrelation to an origin, for example, origin 7303 in FIG. 73, may bedepend on the accident type. FIG. 76b depicts vehicle orientation inrelation to an origin. Diagram 7609 corresponds to the orientation atthe start point of vehicle B for accident types 3, 5, and 17. Arrows7619 indicate the direction of travel of the vehicle. Points 7617correspond to impact point 812 from FIG. 8a for each diagram. Diagram7611 corresponds to the orientation at the start point of vehicle A forall of the accident types illustrated in FIG. 4. Diagram 7613corresponds to the orientation at the start point of vehicle B foraccident type 4. Diagram 7615 corresponds to the orientation at thestart point of vehicle B for accident type 2.

[0435] In certain embodiments, the start point and intended endpositions of vehicles in an accident may depend upon the accident type,the roadway type, roadway characteristics, the position of a vehicle onthe roadway, and driver action or action of a vehicle characteristics.Table 1 includes a list of roadway characteristics that may be used inspeed, time, and distance analysis of vehicles in an accident accordingto one embodiment. Table 1 also lists possible values for the roadwaycharacteristics. TABLE 1 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS AND POSSIBLE VALUESROADWAY CHARACTERISTIC POSSIBLE VALUES A Speed Limit Integer Unknown BSpeed Limit Integer Unknown A Total Lanes Integer Unknown B Total LanesInteger Unknown Intersecting Road Total Integer Lanes Unknown A LaneWidth Narrow (10 feet or less) Average (11 to 13 feet) Wide (14 feet ormore) Unknown B Lane Width Narrow (10 feet or less) Average (11 to 13feet) Wide (14 feet or more) Unknown Originating Lane Width Narrow (10feet or less) Average (11 to 13 feet) Wide (14 feet or more) UnknownIntersecting Lane Narrow (10 feet or less) Width Average (11 to 13 feet)Wide (14 feet or more) Unknown A Median Width None Small (1 to 5 feet)Narrow (6 to 10 feet) Average (11 to 20 feet) Wide (21 feet or more)Size Unknown Presence Unknown B Median Width None Small (1 to 5 feet)Narrow (6 to 10 feet) Average (11 to 20 feet) Wide (21 feet or more)Size Unknown Presence Unknown Originating Median None Width Small (1 to5 feet) Narrow (6 to 10 feet) Average (11 to 20 feet) Wide (21 feet ormore) Size Unknown Presence Unknown Intersecting Median None Width Small(1 to 5 feet) Narrow (6 to 10 feet) Average (11 to 20 feet) Wide (21feet or more) Size Unknown Presence Unknown A Median After Lane #Integer Unknown B Median After Lane # Integer Unknown Intersecting RoadInteger Median After Lane # Unknown Originating Road Integer MedianAfter Lane # Unknown A Inside Shoulder None Width Narrow (2 to 3 feet)Standard (4 feet or more) Size Unknown Presence Unknown B InsideShoulder None Width Narrow (2 to 3 feet) Standard (4 feet or more) SizeUnknown Presence Unknown Originating Inside None Shoulder Width Narrow(2 to 3 feet) Standard (4 feet or more) Size Unknown Presence UnknownIntersecting Road None Inside Shoulder Width Narrow (2 to 3 feet)Standard (4 feet or more) Size Unknown Presence Unknown A Center TurnLane Yes No Unknown B Center Turn Lane Yes No Unknown Originating CenterYes Turn Lane No Unknown Intersecting Center Yes Turn Lane No Unknown ASlope Grade None Uphill Slight (4% or less) Uphill Moderate (5% to 10%)Uphill Steep (10% or more) Downhill Slight (4% or less) DownhillModerate (5% to 9%) Downhill Steep (10% or more) Unknown B Slope GradeNone Uphill Slight (4% or less) Uphill Moderate (5% to 10%) Uphill Steep(10% or more) Downhill Slight (4% or less) Downhill Moderate (5% to 9%)Downhill Steep (10% or more) Unknown A Total Lanes in A IntegerDirection Unknown B Total Lanes in B Integer Direction Unknown A HadStop Line Yes No Unknown B Had Stop Line Yes No Unknown A Distance FromStop Integer Line to start of first Unknown lane B Distance From StopInteger Line to Start of First Unknown Lane

[0436] Table 2 includes a list of driver action or action of a vehiclecharacteristics that may be used in speed, time, and distance analysisof a vehicle in the accident according to one embodiment. Table 2 alsolists possible values for the driver action characteristics. TABLE 2DRIVER ACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND POSSIBLE VALUES DRIVER ACTIONCHARACTERISTICS POSSIBLE VALUES B Start Lane Integer Unknown B TargetLane Integer Unknown A Collision Lane  0.5  1  1.5  2  2.5  3  3.5  4 4.5  5  5.5  6  6.5  7  7.5  8  8.5  9  9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5Median Inside Shoulder (Delete This Outside Shoulder (Delete This)Unknown A Action Prior Accelerating from a stop Constant or SlowingUnknown B Action Prior Accelerating from a stop Constant or SlowingUnknown A Distance When Danger Integer Sensed Unknown B Distance WhenDanger Integer Sensed Unknown A Skid Marks Yes No Unknown B Skid MarksYes No Unknown A Length of Skid Marks Integer Unknown B Length of SkidMarks Integer Unknown A Braking Force Moderate Hard, Controlled SlammedOn B Braking Force Moderate Hard, Controlled Slammed On A AccelerationRate Slow Medium Fast Unknown B Acceleration Rate Slow Medium FastUnknown A Stop Position Behind First Lane At First Lane After Start ofFirst Lane Unknown B Stop Position Behind First Lane At First Lane AfterStart of First Lane Unknown A distance stop position to Integer startfirst lane Unknown B Distance stop position to Integer start First LaneUnknown A Stop Lane  0.5  1  1.5  2  2.5  3  3.5  4  4.5  5  5.5  6  6.5 7  7.5  8  8.5  9  9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 Median Unknown B StopLane  0.5  1  1.5  2  2.5  3  3.5  4  4.5  5  5.5  6  6.5  7  7.5  8 8.5  9  9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 Median Unknown B target laneclosest? Yes No Unknown A Speed Integer Unknown B Speed Integer UnknownB Actual Speed Less Than Yes Minimum Legal Considerably Speed/PrevailingSpeed No Unknown B Hazard Lights On Yes No Unknown Primary Road Yes NoUnknown A Speed at Impact Integer, Unknown B Speed at Impact IntegerUnknown B Stopped Yes No Unknown

[0437] Table 3 includes a list of vehicle types that may be used inspeed, time, and distance analysis of an accident according to oneembodiment. Table 3 also lists approximate vehicle lengths that maycorrespond to the vehicle types. TABLE 3 VEHICLE TYPES AND SIZES VEHICLEVEHICLE TYPE LENGTH (FEET) Car - Mid Size 15.5 Car - Compact 14.5 Car -Full Size 16.7 SUV - Compact 13.1 SUV - Mid Size 15.3 SUV - Full Size17.5 Truck - Mid Size 16.3 Truck - Full Size 18.8 Vans -Passenger/Mini-Vans 16.1

[0438]FIG. 77 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment for estimating thestart point and intended end position of vehicles in an accident. Atdecision point 7701, it is determined whether the start lane for vehicleB is known. If not, then the start lane for vehicle B may be determined7703. In one embodiment, the start lane may depend upon the accidenttype, the median width, the total number of lanes in the direction thatvehicle A is traveling, and the total lanes in the direction thatvehicle B is traveling. For accident type 2, if there is no median forvehicle B, then vehicle B start lane may be given by

B Start Lane=[A Total Lanes in A Direction]+1

[0439] If there is there is a median for vehicle B, then B start lanemay be

B Start Lane=[B Median after Lane Number]+1

[0440] For accident type 3, if there is no median for vehicle B, then Bstart lane may be

B Start Lane=[B's Total Lanes]−[B Total Lanes in B Direction]+1

[0441] If there is a median for vehicle B, then B start lane may be

B Start Lane=[B Median after Lane Number]+1

[0442] For accident type 4, B start lane may be

B Start Lane=[B Total Lanes in B Direction]

[0443] For accident type 5, B start lane may be

B Start Lane=[B Total Lanes]

[0444] At decision point 7705, it is determined whether the collisionlane of vehicle A is a median. If the answer is positive, then acollision lane of vehicle A is determined at step 7707. The collisionlane for vehicle A may be determined from, for example, the medianwidth, the originating lane width, and a shoulder width. The originatinglane refers to the lane from which vehicle A started. In one embodiment,for accident type 2, the collision lane of vehicle A may be theoriginating median after lane number plus 0.5. In addition, for accidenttypes 3, 4, 5, and 17, the vehicle A collision lane may be a medianafter lane number plus 0.5.

[0445] At decision point 7709, it is determined whether a vehicle A stoplane or vehicle B stop lane is unknown. It the answer is positive, thena vehicle A stop lane and/or vehicle B stop lane may be determined 7711.In one embodiment, the vehicle A stop lane may be set to one. Inaddition, for accident types 3, 5, and 17 the vehicle B stop lane may beset to 1. If the accident type is 2, the vehicle B stop lane may be setto the total lanes of the intersecting roadway. If the accident type is4, a B stop lane may be set to the total lanes in the direction thatvehicle B is traveling.

[0446] In some embodiments, the method may further include estimatingthe y coordinate of the start point (start y) of vehicle A at step 7713.Start y for vehicle A may be determined using roadway characteristics.At decision point 7715, it is determined if vehicle A is the reactingvehicle and whether the action of vehicle A prior to the accident wasconstant speed or slowing. If the answer is negative, then the xcoordinate of the start point (start x) of vehicle A, the x coordinateof the intended end position (end x) of vehicle A, and the y coordinateof the intended end position (end y) of vehicle A may be estimated 7717.If the answer to decision point 7715 is positive, then the methodproceeds to step 7719. The start point of vehicle A may be estimated atstep 7209 in FIG. 72. At step 7719, start x, start y, end x, and end yfor vehicle B may be estimated.

[0447] In some embodiments, a method for estimating start x for vehicleA from roadway characteristics may be given by: If [A action prior] =“constant or slowing” If [A had stop line] = yes: A start x = −1*[Adistance from stop line to start of first lane] If [A had stop line] =no: assume edge of intersection: A start x = 0 If [A action prior] =“accelerate from a stop” If [A stop position] = “behind first lane”: Astart x = −1 * [A distance stop position to start first lane] If [A stopposition] = “at first lane”: A start x = 0 If [A stop position] = “afterstart of first lane” started in intersection If AT 2 Get lane Width oflanes crossed = [intersecting road lane width] If [Intersecting roadmedian width] = 0 (“none”) then A start x = ([A stop lane] −.5) *laneWidth If [Intersecting road median width] greater than 0 (“none”)and [A stop lane] = “median” then A start x = [Intersecting road medianafter lane #] * laneWidth + [Intersecting road median width] + 2 *[Intersecting road inside shoulder width] If [Intersecting road medianwidth] greater than 0 (“none”) and [A stop lane] less than [Intersectingroad median after lane #] then A start x = ([A stop lane] −.5) *laneWidth If [Intersecting road median width] greater than 0 (“none”)and [A stop lane] is greater than [Intersecting road median after lane#] then A start x = ([A stop lane] −.5) * laneWidth + [Intersecting roadmedian width] + 2 * [Intersecting road inside shoulder width] If AT 3,4, 5, 17 Get laneWidth of lanes crossed [B lane width] If [B medianwidth] = 0 (“none”) then A start x = ([A stop lane] −.5) * laneWidth If[B median width] greater than 0 (“none”) and [A stop lane] = “median”then A start x = [B median after lane #] * laneWidth + [B medianwidth] + 2 * [B inside shoulder width] If [B median width] greater than0 (“none”) and [A stop lane] less than [B Median after lane #] then Astart x = ([A stop lane] −.5) * laneWidth If [B median width] greaterthan 0 (“none”) and [A stop lane] is greater than [B median after lane#] then A start x = ([A stop lane] −.5) * laneWidth + [B median width] +2 * [B inside shoulder width]

[0448] In some embodiments, start y for vehicle A may be given by [Acollision lane −0.5]* [A lane width].

[0449] In some embodiments, the start x, start y, end x, and end y forvehicle B may be determined from roadway characteristics. However, incertain embodiments, at least one of the coordinates may be derived fromat least one of the other coordinates. The method of determining thestarting and intended end coordinates for vehicle B may depend on theaccident type and roadway configuration.

[0450] An embodiment of a method for determining start x, start y, endx, and end y for vehicle B for accident type 2 is depicted in FIG. 78.At decision point 7801, it is determined whether the roadwayconfiguration is A, E, H, or I and if vehicle A is on a primary road, asis depicted in FIG. 79a. If the answer to decision point 7801 ispositive, then start x may be determined 7803 from start y, end x, andend y. The calculation of start x may be deferred until start y, end x,and end y are estimated from roadway characteristics. In FIG. 79a,vehicle A 7901 on primary road 7903 is approaching vehicle B 7905.Vehicle B is turning with trajectory 7907 to secondary road 7909. Startx, y are given by point 7911 and end x, y are given by point 7913.

[0451] Alternatively, if the answer to decision point 7801 is negative,then start x is estimated 7805 from roadway characteristics, start y isestimated 7807 from roadway characteristics, and end x is estimated 7809from roadway characteristics.

[0452] At decision point 7811, it is determined whether the roadwayconfiguration is A, E, H, or I and if vehicle A is not on a primaryroad. If the answer to decision point 7811 is positive, then end y maybe calculated from start y, start x, and end x. Such a situation isdepicted in FIG. 79b. FIG. 79b depicts an accident scene similar to thatin FIG. 79a, however, vehicle A 7915 on secondary road 7919 isapproaching vehicle B 7917 on secondary road 7925. Vehicle B is turningwith trajectory 7921 on to primary road 7923. If decision point 7811 isnegative, then end y may be calculated from roadway characteristics.

[0453] An embodiment of a method for determining start x, start y, endx, and end y for vehicle B for accident type 3 is depicted in FIG. 80.At step 8001, start x may be estimated from roadway characteristics. Atdecision point 8003, it is determined whether the roadway configurationis A, E, H, or I and if the vehicle A is not on a primary road asdepicted in FIG. 81a. In FIG. 81a, vehicle A 8101 on secondary road 8103is approaching turning vehicle B 8105. Vehicle B is turning withtrajectory 8107 from primary road 8109 to secondary road 8103. Start x,y are given by point 8111 and end x, y are given by point 8113. If theanswer to decision point 8003 is positive, then start y may becalculated 8005 from start x, end x, and end y. The calculation of starty may be deferred until start x, end x, and end y are estimated fromroadway characteristics. The method continues to decision point 8009. Ifthe answer to decision point 8003 is negative, then start y is estimated8007 from roadway characteristics.

[0454] At decision point 8009, it is determined whether the roadwayconfiguration is A, E, H, or I and if the vehicle A is on a primary roadas depicted in FIG. 81b. FIG. 81b depicts an accident scene similar tothat in FIG. 81a, however, vehicle A 8115 on primary road 8119 isapproaching vehicle B 8117. Vehicle B is turning with trajectory 8121from secondary road 8123 to primary road 8119. If the answer to decisionpoint 8009 is positive then end x may be calculated from start x, end y,and start y. The calculation of end x may be deferred until end y isestimated from roadway characteristics. The method then proceeds to step8015. If the answer to decision point 8009 is negative, then end x maybe estimated 8013 from roadway characteristics. End y is then estimated8015 from roadway characteristics.

[0455] An embodiment of a method for determining start x, start y, endx, and end y for vehicle B for accident type 4 is depicted in FIG. 82.Start x may be estimated 8301 from roadway characteristics. At decisionpoint 8203, it is determined whether roadway configuration is A, E, H,or I and if the vehicle A is not on a primary road as depicted in FIG.83a. In FIG. 83a, vehicle A 8301 on secondary road 8303 is approachingturning vehicle B 8305 on primary road 8307. Vehicle B is turning withtrajectory 8309 to secondary road 8311. Start x, y are given by point8313 and end x, y are given by point 8315. If the answer to decisionpoint 8203 is positive, then start y may be calculated 8205 from startx, end x, and end y. The calculation of start y may be deferred untilstart x, end x, and end y are estimated from roadway characteristics.The method continues to decision point 8209. If the answer to decisionpoint 8203 is negative, then start y is estimated from roadwaycharacteristics.

[0456] At decision point 8209, it is determined whether roadwayconfiguration is A, E, H, or I and if the vehicle A is on a primary roadas depicted in FIG. 83b. FIG. 83b depicts an accident scene similar tothat in FIG. 83a, however, vehicle A 8317 on primary road 8319 isapproaching vehicle B 8321 on secondary road 8323. Vehicle B is turningwith trajectory 8325 on to primary road 8319. If the answer to decisionpoint 8209 is positive then end x may be calculated from start x, end y,and start y. The calculation of end x may be deferred until end y isestimated from roadway characteristics. The method then proceeds to step8215. If the answer to decision point 8209 is negative, then end x maybe estimated 8213 from roadway characteristics. End y is then estimated8215 from roadway characteristics.

[0457] In some embodiments, a method for estimating start x for vehicleB from roadway characteristics for accident type 2 and an orientation of4 may be given by: If [B action prior] = “constant or slowing” If [B hadstop line] = yes, B start x = [B distance from stop line to start offirst lane] + [intersecting road lane width] * [intersecting road totallanes] + [intersecting road median width] + 2 * [intersecting roadinside shoulder width] Adjust for median and inside shoulder ifnecessary. The width and presence of them are combined in to onequestion - “none” = 0 ft. If [B had stop line] = no, B start x =[intersecting road lane width] * [intersecting road total lanes] +[intersecting road median width] + 2 * [intersecting road insideshoulder width] Adjust for median and inside shoulder if necessary. Thewidth and presence of them are combined in to one question - “none” = 0ft. If [B action prior] = “accelerate from a stop” (they were stopped atsome point) If [B stop position] = “behind first lane” B start x =[distance stop position to start first lane] + [intersecting road lanewidth] * [intersecting road total lanes] + [intersecting road medianwidth] + 2 * [intersecting road inside shoulder width] If [B stopposition] = “at first lane” (width of intersection box) B start x =[intersecting road lane width] * [intersecting road total lanes] +[intersecting road median width] + 2 * [intersecting road insideshoulder width] If [B stop position] = “after start of first lane”started in intersection If [intersecting road median width] = 0 (“none”)B start x =([B stop lane] − .5) * [intersecting road laneWidth] If[intersecting road median width] greater than 0 (“none”) and [B stoplane] is less than [intersecting road median after lane #] then B startx = ([B stop lane] − .5) * [intersecting road laneWidth] If[intersecting road median width] greater than 0 (“none”) and [B stoplane] = “median” then B start x = [intersecting road median after lane#] * [intersecting road laneWidth] If [intersecting road median width]greater than 0 (“none”) and [B stop lane] is greater than [intersectingroad median after lane #] then B start x = ([B stop lane] − .5) *[intersecting road laneWidth] + [intersecting road median width] + 2 *[intersecting road inside shoulder width]

[0458] In some embodiments, a method for estimating start y for vehicleB from roadway characteristics for accident type 2 and an orientation of4 may be given by: If [originating median width] = 0 (“none” ) B start y= [B Start Lane] * [originating lane width] If [originating medianwidth] ] 0 (not “none”) B start y = [B Start Lane] * [originating lanewidth] + [originating median width] + 2 * [originating inside shoulderwidth]

[0459] In some embodiments, a method for estimating start x for vehicleB from roadway characteristics for accident type 3, 5, or 17 and anorientation of 1 may be given by: If [B median width] = 0 (“none”) Bstart x = ([B Start Lane] − .5) * [B lane width] If [B median width] 0(not “none”) B start x = ([B Start Lane] − .5) * [B lane width] + [Bmedian width] + 2 * [B inside shoulder width]

[0460] In some embodiments, a method for estimating start y for vehicleB from roadway characteristics for accident type 3, 5, or 17 and anorientation of 1 may be given by: If [B action prior] = “constant orslowing” If [B had stop line] = yes, B start y = −1 * [B distance fromstop line to start of first lane] If [B had stop line] = no, B start y =0 If [B action prior] = “accelerated from a stop” If [B stop position] =“behind first lane” B start y = = −1 *. [B distance stop position tostart first lane] If [B stop position] = “at first lane” B start y = 0If [B stop position] = “after start of first lane”started inintersection Get [B stop lane] and validate If [B stop lane] = “median”or is greater than [A collision lane] set [B stop lane] to [A collisionlane] B start y =([B stop lane] − .5) * [A lane width]

[0461] In some embodiments, a method estimating start x for vehicle Bfrom roadway characteristics for accident type 4 and an orientation of 3may be given by:

B start x=([B Start Lane]−0.5) * [B lane width]

[0462] In certain embodiments, a method for determining start y forvehicle B from roadway characteristics for accident type 4 and anorientation of 3 may be given by: If [B action prior] = “constant orslowing” If [B had stop line] = yes If [A median width] = 0 (“none”) Bstart y = [B distance from stop line to start of first lane] + [A lanewidth] * [A total lanes] If [A median width] 0 (not “none”) B start y =[B distance from stop line to start of first lane] + [A lane width] * [Atotal lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A inside shoulder width] If [Bhad stop line] = no If [A median width] = 0 (“none”) B start y = [A lanewidth] * [A total lanes] If [A median width] 0 (not “none”) B start y =[A lane width] * [A total lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A insideshoulder width] If [B action prior] = “accelerated from a stop” If [Bstop position] = “behind first lane” If [A median width] = 0 (“none”) Bstart y = [B distance stop position to start first lane] + [A lanewidth] * [A total lanes] If [A median width] 0 (not “none”) B start y =[B distance stop position to start first lane] + [A lane width] * [Atotal lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A inside shoulder width] If [Bstop position] = “at first lane” (width of intersection box) If [Amedian width] = 0 (“none”) B start y = [A lane width] * [A total lanes]If [A median width] ] 0 (not “none”) B start y = [A lane width] * [Atotal lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A inside shoulder width] If [Bstop position] = “after start of first lane” started in intersection If[A median width] = 0 (“none”) B start y =([B stop lane] − .5) * [AlaneWidth] If [A median width] 0 (“none”) and [B stop lane] = “median”then B start y = [A median after lane #] * [A lane width] If [A medianwidth] greater than 0 (“none”) and [B stop lane] is less than or equalto [A median after lane #] then B start y = ([B stop lane] − .5) * [Alane width] If [A median width] greater than 0 (“none”) and [B stoplane] is greater than [A median after lane #] then B start y = ([B stoplane] − .5) * [A lane width] + [A median width] + 2 * [A inside shoulderwidth]

[0463] In some embodiments, a method for estimating end x for vehicle Bfrom roadway characteristics for accident type 2 and an orientation of 3may be given by:

B intended end x=([B target lane]−0.5) * [intersecting road lane width]

[0464] In some embodiments, a method for estimating end y for vehicle Bfrom roadway characteristics for accident type 2 and an orientation of 3may be given by: If [B target lane closest] = “Yes”, then B intended endy = −2*[B Vehicle Length] If [B target lane closest] is “No” then Bintended B intended end y = −3*[B Vehicle Length]

[0465] In some embodiments, a method for estimating end x for vehicle Bfrom roadway characteristics for accident type 3 and an orientation of 4may be given by: If [B target lane closest] = “Yes” then B intended endx = −2*[B Vehicle Length] If [B target lane closest] is “No” then Bintended end x = −3*[B Vehicle Length]

[0466] In some embodiments, a method for estimating end y for vehicle Bfrom roadway characteristics for accident type 3 and an orientation of 4may be given by:

B intended end y=([B target lane]−0.5)*[A lane width]+[A medianwidth]+2*[A inside shoulder width]

[0467] In some embodiments, a method for estimating end x for vehicle Bfrom roadway characteristics for accident type 4 or 5 and an orientationof 2 may be given by: If [B target lane closest] = “Yes”, then Bintended end x = [B Total Lanes]*[B lane width] + [B median width] +2*[B inside shoulder width] + 2*[B Vehicle Length] If [B target laneclosest] is “No”, then B intended end x = [B's Total Lanes]*[B lanewidth] + [B median width] + 2*[B inside shoulder width] + 3*[B VehicleLength]

[0468] In some embodiments, a method for estimating end y for vehicle Bfrom roadway characteristics for accident type 4 or 5 and an orientationof 2 may be given by:

B intended end y=([B target lane]−0.5) * [A lane width]

[0469] In some embodiments, a method for determining end x for vehicle Bfrom roadway characteristics for accident type 17 and an orientation of1 may be given by:

B intended end x=start x for B

[0470] In some embodiments, a method for determining end y for vehicle Bfrom roadway characteristics for accident type 17 and an orientation of1 may be given by:

B intended end y=([A Collision Lane])*[A Lane width]+2*[B VehicleLength]

[0471] As indicated in FIG. 76a at step 7607, an embodiment of a methodfor estimating the theoretical path of vehicles in an accident mayinclude determining mathematical relationships for the path of at leastone point of on at least one vehicle, for example, turning vehicle B. Inone embodiment, the path of a point on a vehicle may be described by aportion of an ellipse.

[0472] In one embodiment, the method depicted in FIG. 77 may includeestimating the start and end coordinates of at least one point on avehicle, for example, impact point 812 (vehicle point 12 or vehicle 12),as shown in FIG. 8a. The start and end coordinates of a vehicle pointmay be used to determine a mathematical relationship for a trajectorybetween the start and end coordinates.

[0473] In certain embodiments, the start and end coordinates of at leastone additional vehicle point may be determined from the start and endcoordinates of at least one other vehicle point. Table 4 lists thecoordinates of vehicle points with respect to vehicle point 812 for thefour vehicle orientations in FIG. 76b. The numbers in the “Point” columnrefer to vehicle points depicted in FIG. 8a. “W” is the width unit of avehicle and “L” is the length unit of the vehicle. TABLE 4 COORDINATESOF VEHICLE POINTS WITH RESPECT TO VEHICLE POINT 12 Orientation Point 1 23 4 x y X Y x y x y 801 W 0 0 −W −W 0 0 W 802 W −L −L −W −W L L W 803 W−2L −2L −W −W 2L 2L W 804 W −3L −3L −W −W 3L 3L W 805 W −4L −4L −W −W 4L4L W 806 0 −4L −4L 0 0 4L 4L 0 807 −W −4L −4L W W 4L 4L −W 808 −W −3L−3L W W 3L 3L −W 809 −W −2L −2L W W 2L 2L −W 810 −W −L −L W W L L −W 811−W 0 0 W W 0 0 −W 812 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[0474] In one embodiment, pseudo-code for determining the coordinates ofa vehicle point from the coordinates of vehicle point 12 may be givenas: // get starting values X12 = x value for vehicle point 12 Y12 = yvalue for vehicle point 12 TW = get total width of vehicle for vehicleclass TL = get total length of vehicle from vehicle class (or ask???) W= TW / 2 L = TL / 4 // get starting offset for orientation 1 // get xoffset xo if pt 6, 12 xo=0 else if pt 1-5 xo = W else xo = −W // get yoffset yo if pt 12 yo = 0 else if pt 6 yo = −4L else if pt 7-11 yo =(pt−11) * L else yo = (pt−1)*−1 * L //pts 1 - 5 // put values somewhereelse temporarily so we can swap, if needed startXO = xo startYO = yo //modify to fit others, if orientation is not 1 if orientation = 2 // swapx & y; negate x xo = startYO * −1 yo = startXO else if orientation = 3// negate x and y xo = startXO * −1 yo = startYO * −1 else iforientation = 4 // swap x & y; negate y xo = startYO yo = startXO* −1 //xo, yo already correct for orientation 1 // get x, y based on point 12and offset x = X12 + xo y = Y12 + yo

[0475]FIG. 84 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method ofestimating a mathematical relationship for a trajectory of one or morevehicle points. The method may include selecting 8401 one or morevehicle points, such that the start and end coordinates of at least onevehicle point are known. For example, the start and end coordinates ofvehicle point 12 may be known from the method in FIG. 76a. It may bedesirable to select vehicle points that may be used to estimate thecoordinates of a collision area shown in FIG. 74. For example, the firstvehicle point (vehicleFP), the last vehicle point (vehicleLP), and acollision vehicle point (vehicleCP) may be selected. As used herein, the“first vehicle point” refers to the first point on a turning vehicle tooccupy a collision area. For example, vehicle point 7413 may correspondto a first vehicle point. Similarly, the “last vehicle point” refers tothe last point on a vehicle to occupy the collision area. For example,vehicle point 7417 may correspond to a last vehicle point. In addition,the “collision point” refers to the point on the roadway within thecollision area where impact points of vehicles in the accident meet. Forexample, vehicle point 7421 may correspond to a collision point. In oneembodiment, the first point and last point may depend on the accidenttype. Table 5 lists the vehicle points that correspond to severalaccident types. TABLE 5 VEHICLE POINTS CORRESPONDING TO ACCIDENT TYPESAccident Type VehicleFP VehicleLP 2 811 805 3 801 807 4 801 807 5 811805 17 812 806

[0476] The collision vehicle point may correspond to the vehicle Bimpact point.

[0477] In some embodiments, a method may further include determining8403 the start and end coordinates of vehicle points that are unknownfrom the known coordinates of a vehicle point. For example, the startand end coordinates of vehicleFP and vehicleLP may be determined fromthe coordinates of vehicle 12 using Table 4.

[0478] In certain embodiments, a method may include determining 8405 amathematical relationship or curve between the start and end coordinatesof at least one vehicle point. The mathematical relationship mayrepresent the trajectory of at least one vehicle point. The mathematicalrelationship may be determined using the start and end coordinates of atleast on vehicle point. For example, trajectory 7415 in FIG. 74 may be acurve for vehicleFP (FP curve), trajectory 7419 may be a curve forvehicleLP (LP curve), and trajectory 7423 may be a curve for vehicleCP(CP curve).

[0479] In one embodiment, a mathematical relationship for a trajectoryof a vehicle point may be a portion of an ellipse. The general equationfor an ellipse is given by:

(x−c)²/a+(y−d)²/b

[0480] where “a” is the length of a first axis of the ellipse and “b” isthe length of a second axis of the ellipse that is centered at (c, d).FIG. 85 depicts an ellipse with axes “a” and “b” centered at (c, d).

[0481] In some embodiments, the starting point of a curve, such as anellipse, that describes a trajectory of vehicle B may not correspond toa start point (start x and start y) of vehicle B. In an embodiment, thestarting point may not correspond to the start of a curve when vehicle Baccelerated from a stop prior to the accident. For example, vehicle Bmay have accelerated from a stop that was further back from the pointwhere vehicle B started an elliptical path. A method of estimating thecoordinates of the start of an ellipse (ES x, ES y) and the distancefrom the ellipse start to the start point (D_(SP to ES)) may be givenby: If Orientation 1 Find Ellipse Start y If Vehicle12 y at Start isless than −[B Vehicle Length], then Vehicle ES y value = −[B VehicleLength]. If Vehicle 12 y at Start is greater than or equal to −[BVehicle Length], then VehicleES y value = Vehicle12 y at Start FindEllipse Start x Vehicle ES x value = Vehicle12 x at Start FindD_(SP to ES) D_(SP to ES) = ABS(Vehicle ES y − Vehicle 12 y) IfOrientation 3 Find Ellipse Start y If Vehicle12 y at Start is greaterthan [A lane width] * [A total lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A insideshoulder width]+ [B Vehicle Length], then Vehicle ES y = [A lanewidth] * [A total lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A inside shoulderwidth]+ [B Vehicle Length] If Vehicle12 y at Start is less than or equalto [A lane width] * [A total lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A insideshoulder width]+ [B vehicle Length],then Vehicle ES y value = Vehicle12y at Start Find Ellipse Start x Vehicle ES x value = Vehicle 12 x atStart Find D_(SP to ES) D_(SP to ES) = ABS(Vehicle 12 y − vehicle ES y)If Orientation 4 Find Ellipse Start x If Vehicle 12 x at Start isgreater than [intersecting road lane width] * [intersecting road totallanes] + [intersecting road median width] + 2 * [intersecting roadinside shoulder width] + [B Vehicle Length], then Vehicle ES x =[intersecting road lane width] * [intersecting road total lanes] +[intersecting road median width] + 2 * [intersecting road insideshoulder width] + [B Vehicle Length] If Vehicle 12 at Start is less thanor equal to [intersecting road lane width] * [intersecting road totallanes] + [intersecting road median width] + 2 * [intersecting roadinside shoulder width] + [B Vehicle Length],then Vehicle ES x value =Vehicle 12 x at Start Find Ellipse Start y Vehicle ES y value = Vehicle12 y at Start Find D_(SP to ES) D_(SP to ES) = ABS(Vehicle 12 x −vehicle ES x)

[0482] In one embodiment, the values of a, b, c, and d may be determinedfor at least one vehicle point to generate an equation for an ellipse ofthe trajectory of the vehicle point. The value of “a” for a vehiclepoint may be determined from:

a=Absolute value(vehicle point ellipse start x (ES x)−end x of vehiclepoint)

[0483] The value of “b” for a vehicle point may be determined from:

b=Absolute value(vehicle point ellipse start y (ES y)−end y of vehiclepoint)

[0484] The values of “c” and “d” may depend on the accident type. Forexample, c and d for accident type 2 may be given by:

c=ES x d=end y

[0485] In addition, c and d for accident types 3, 4, 5, and 17 may begiven by:

c=end x d=ES y

[0486]FIGS. 86a-c depict portions of ellipses that representtrajectories for various accident types. FIG. 86a depicts portion 8601for accident type 2. Point 8609 is the start of the portion of theellipse, point 8611 is the end of the portion of the ellipse, and point8613 is the center of the ellipse. FIG. 86b depicts portion 8603 foraccident type 3 and portion 8605 for accident type 5. For portion 8603,point 8615 is the start of the portion of the ellipse, point 8617 is theend of the portion of the ellipse, and point 8621 is the center of theellipse. For portion 8605, point 8615 is the start of the portion of anellipse, point 8619 is the end of the portion of the ellipse, and point8623 is the center of the ellipse. FIG. 86c depicts portion 8607 foraccident type 4. Point 8625 is the start of a portion of an ellipse,point 8627 is the end of a portion of an ellipse, and point 8629 is thecenter of the ellipse.

[0487] An embodiment of a method of using the speed, time, and distanceof vehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart inFIG. 72 may also include estimating 7205 coordinates of the collisionarea. In an embodiment, a collision area may be defined using acollision lane and a trajectory of at least one point on the turningvehicle. The collision area, as shown in FIG. 74, may be rectangular inshape. In other embodiments, the collision area may be other shapes,such as square or elliptical.

[0488] “Collision area points” refer to points on or inside thecollision area that are intersected by vehicle points. “AreaFP” mayrefer to the point at which the first vehicle point of a vehicle(vehicleFP) enters the collision area. For example, collision area point7429 in FIG. 74 may be an areaFP. In one embodiment, areaFP may bedetermined from the first intersection of the trajectory of vehicleFPand the collision lane. For example, the intersection of trajectory 7415with edge 7435 of collision lane 7427 may determine areaFP. In anembodiment, the trajectory of vehicleFP, such as trajectory 7415, may bea mathematical relationship, such as an ellipse, derived using themethod depicted in FIG. 84.

[0489] In an embodiment, the equation for the edge of the collision lanemay depend on the accident type. The x and y coordinates of areaFP maybe given as:

areaFPy=vehicle12 y of vehicle A+½ [collision lane width]  AT 2, 4

areaFPy=vehicle12 y of vehicle A−½ [collision lane width]  AT 3, 5

areaFPx=ellipseIntercept(curve=FP, x value=N/A, y value=areaFPy)

areaFPx=B start x−½ [vehicle B lane width]

areaFPy=vehicle12−½ [vehicle A lane width]  AT 17

[0490] Vehicle12 y of vehicle A is the y coordinate of vehicle12.EllipseIntercept may refer to a function that determines the x-value ofa point on an ellipse at a known y-value. For accident type 3, anx-value may be determined from:

x=c+a(1−(y−d)² /b ²)^(1/2)

[0491] where a, b, c, and d are ellipse parameters shown in FIG. 85. Thex-value for accident types 2, 4, and 5 may be determined from:

x=c−a(1−(y−d)² /b ²)^(1/2)

[0492] Similarly, a y-value may be determined from a known x-value. Foraccident types 2, 3, and 5, a y-value may be determined from:

y=d+b(1−(x−c)² /a ²)^(1/2)

[0493] For accident type 4, a y-value may be determined from:

y=d−b(1−(x−c)² /a ²)^(1/2)

[0494] “AreaLP” may refer to the point at which the last vehicle pointof a vehicle (vehicleLP) exits the collision area. For example,collision area point 7431 in FIG. 74 may be an areaLP. In oneembodiment, areaLP may be determined from the second intersection of thetrajectory of vehicleLP with the collision lane. For example, theintersection of trajectory 7419 with edge 7437 of collision lane 7427may determine areaLP. In an embodiment, the trajectory of vehicleLP maybe a mathematical relationship, such as an ellipse, derived using themethod depicted in FIG. 84. The coordinates of areaLP may be given as:

[0495] If AT 17

areaLPx=vehicle B start x+½ [B Lane Width]

areaLPy=vehicle A vehicle12+½ [A lane width]

[0496] If AT 2,3,4,5

areaLPx=ellipseIntercept(LP, N/A, areaLPy)

If AT 2, 4: areaLPy=A vehicle12−½ [A lane width]

If AT 3, 5: areaLPy=A vehicle12+½ [A lane width]

[0497] “AreaCP” may refer to the point inside the collision area atwhich the trajectory of impact points (vehicleCP) of vehicle A andvehicle B intersect. For example, areaCP in FIG. 74, point 7441, may bedetermined from the intersection of trajectory 7443 of vehicle point7439 with trajectory 7423 of vehicle point 7421. The trajectory ofvehicleCP of vehicle B, such as trajectory 7423, may be a mathematicalrelationship, such as an ellipse, derived using the method depicted inFIG. 84. Trajectory 7423 corresponds to the trajectory of the impactpoint of vehicle B (B vehicleCP). The coordinates of areaCP may be givenby:

areaCPy=([A Collision Lane]−0.5) * [A Lane Width]+widthDifferencewidthDifference=

If impact point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, widthDifference=−3

If impact point 6, 12, widthDifference=0

If impact point 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, widthDifference=3

areaCPx=ellipseIntercept(CP, N/A, areaCPy)

[0498] An embodiment of a method of using speed, time, and distance ofvehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart in FIG.72 may also include estimating 7207 the time, a perception time, for acollision point on the reference vehicle to travel from a perceptionpoint to the collision area. The perception point may be determinedusing a visibility start point. The “visibility start point” is aposition on the reference vehicle's travel path at which a reactingvehicle may be expected to first notice the reference vehicle. The timeat the visibility start point may be no earlier than the time at thestart point of the reference vehicle.

[0499]FIG. 87a and FIG. 87b depict the trajectories of vehicle pointsfor vehicles A and B, respectively. Point A is vehicleFP at the startpoint of vehicle A (FIG. 87b) or vehicle B (FIG. 87a), point B isvehicleFP at the visibility start, point C is vehicleFP at theperception point, and point D is vehicleFP at areaFP. Point E isvehicleCP at the start point, point F is vehicleCP when vehicleFP is atthe perception point, and point G is vehicleCP at areaCP. As shown inFIGS. 87a and 87 b, the points may refer to either vehicle A or vehicleB.

[0500]FIG. 88 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method ofestimating the time and distance traveled by vehicleCP from theperception point to the collision point. Referring to FIG. 87a or FIG.87b, the method estimates the time and distance between point F andpoint G (FG). The method includes estimating 8801 the visibility startpoint for vehicleFP, which is point B in FIGS. 87a and b. In oneembodiment, the visibility start point may be the start point for thereference vehicle estimated with the method depicted in FIG. 84. Forexample, the visibility start point may be at the start point ofvehicleFP.

[0501] Alternatively, the visibility start point may differ from thestart point if a view of the roadway was obstructed, for example, byparked cars. In one embodiment, if the start point of the vehicle is atthe edge or inside the intersection box shown in FIG. 73, then thevisibility start point may be at the start point of vehicleFP. If thestart point is behind the edge of the intersection box, the visibilitystart point may be at the edge of the intersection box. In oneembodiment, a method of estimating the visibility start point (Visstart) may include the following:

[0502] If viewObstructed

[0503] If vehicle's start point at edge of or inside intersection box

[0504] Vis start x=start vehicleFP x

[0505] Vis start y=start vehicleFP y

[0506] If start point behind edge of intersection box

[0507] Visibility start point is edge of intersection box

[0508] B reference vehicle

[0509] Start orientation=1

If AT 17: Vis start x=B start vehicleFP x

Other ATs: Vis start x=ellipseIntersect(FP ellipse, x=N/A, y=0)

[0510] Vis start y=0

[0511] Start orientation=4

Vis start x=right intersection edge=[intersecting road lane width] *[intersecting road total lanes]+[intersecting road median width]+2 *[intersecting road inside shoulder width]

Vis start y=ellipseIntercept(FP ellipse, x=vis start x, y=N/A)

[0512] Start orientation=3

Vis start x=ellipseIntercept(FP ellipse, x=N/A, y=vis start y)

Vis start y=top intersection edge=[A lane width] * [A total lanes]+[Amedian width]+2 * [A inside shoulder width]

[0513] A reference vehicle

[0514] Start orientation=2

[0515] Vis start x=0

[0516] Vis start y=start vehicleFP y

[0517] If view not obstructed

[0518] Vis start x=vehicleFP x

[0519] Vis start y=vehicleFP y

[0520] In an embodiment, the method in FIG. 88 may further includeestimating 8803 a distance from vehicleFP at visibility start (point B)to the collision area (point D or areaFP), which is BD in FIGS. 87a andb. For example, if vehicle B is the reference vehicle and its view isobstructed, BD may be found from the arc length of an FP curve from thestart point to the collision area. An “FP curve” is a mathematicalrelationship representing the trajectory of vehicleFP. In an embodiment,the curve may be a portion of an ellipse. In one embodiment, theestimation of the arc length of an ellipse may be expressed as follows:

BD=arclength(FP, B vis start x, areaFPx)

[0521] If the view is not obstructed, BD is the arc length above inaddition to the distance from the start point to the ellipse start:

BD=arclength(FP, B vis start x, areaFPx)+D _(SP to ES)

[0522] Arclength( curve, x1, x2) is a function which calculates the arclength of ellipse “curve” between “x1” and “x2.” The pseudo-code for thearc length function may be given as: Float f(x,a,b) // beware of havingto cast expression or sub-expressions to float Return(sqrt(a{circumflexover ( )}2 * cos(x){circumflex over ( )}2 + b{circumflex over ( )}2 *sin(x){circumflex over ( )}2)) // for AT 17, call this method but usethe two y values of the points instead of the x values Floatarclength(curve, x1, x2) // beware of need to cast to float get a,b,c,dfor the appropriate ellipse, FP, CP, LP // check for cases where ellipseis a line if(a = = 0) if AT 17 return abs(x2 − x1) // note inputs arereally y values in this case else error If (b = = 0) return abs(x2− x1)// this should never happen // center ellipse on origin x1 = x1 − c x2 =x2 − c // ensure arc is to the right of y axis (positive x values) x1 =abs(x1) x2 = abs(x2) if(x1 > x2){ float temp temp = x1 x1 = x2 x2 = temp} // ensure x not beyond A axis of ellipse if (x2 > a) x2 = a if(x1 < 0)x1=0 // express integral limits in terms of x, instead of in radiansfloat lowerLimit, upperLimit lowerLimit = arcsin(x1/a) upperLimit =arcsin(x2/a) /* evaluate integral as described in white paper */ // setnumber of iterations << to be determined experimentally>> MUST BE EVENint iterations = 8 stepSize = (upperLimit − lowerLimit) / iterations //evaluate first and last terms float sum=0 sum = f(lowerLimit,a,b) +f(upperLimit,a,b) // evaluate remaining n-2 terms int coefficient = 2for(int k = 1; k<iterations; ++k) { coefficient = 6−coefficient sum +=coefficient * f(lowerLimit+k*stepSize,a,b) } sum *= stepSize / 3return(sum)

[0523] If vehicle A is the reference vehicle, BD may be found from:

BD=min(areaFPx and areaLPx)−vis start x

[0524] In one embodiment, the method in FIG. 88 may also includeestimating 8805 a distance for vehicleFP at the perception point (pointC) to the collision area (point D or areaFP), which is CD in FIGS. 87aand b. First, it may be determined whether vehicle A or vehicle B is onthe near side or the far side. The terms “near side” and “far side”refer to the distance between vehicles as they enter an intersection. Arelatively large distance between vehicles may correspond to a reactingvehicle approaching from the far side of an intersection with respect toa reference vehicle. Alternatively, a relatively small distance betweenvehicles may correspond to a reacting vehicle approaching from the nearside of an intersection with respect to a reference vehicle. In oneembodiment, near side or far side may be determined by the following:

[0525] AT 3, 5, 17

If reference vehicle is vehicle A and [B Median Width] is greater than“none”, or Roadway=H and [Primary Road]=“No”, or [B Center TurnLane]=“Yes”, Far Side

Otherwise, Near Side

[0526] AT4

If reference vehicle is vehicle B and [A Median Width] is greater than“none” or Roadway=H and [Primary Road]=“Yes” or [A Center TurnLane]=“Yes”, Far Side

Otherwise, Near Side

[0527] AT 2

If [Originating Median Width] is greater than “none” or Roadway=H and[Primary Road]=“Yes” or [Originating Center Turn Lane}=“Yes”, Far Side

Otherwise, Near Side

[0528] In one embodiment, the reference vehicle may travel a specifieddistance from visibility start (point B in FIGS. 87a and b) to thecollision area (point D on FIGS. 87a and b) before the reacting vehicleperceives danger. If the vehicle is on the far side, then the referencevehicle may travel specified fraction of the distance from point B topoint D before the reacting vehicle perceives danger. In one embodiment,the specified fraction may be two thirds, which makes CD approximately⅓ * BD. In other embodiments, specified fraction may be slightly more orless than two thirds. If the vehicle is on the near side, then thereference vehicle may travel a another specified fraction of thedistance from point B to point D before the reacting vehicle perceivesdanger. In an embodiment, the specified fraction may be one third, whichmakes CD approximately ⅔ * BD. In some embodiments, the anotherspecified fraction may be slightly more or less than one third.

[0529] An embodiment of the method in FIG. 88 may include estimating8807 a distance for vehicleFP from the starting point (point A) to thecollision area (point D or areaFP), which is AD in FIGS. 87a and b. Ifvehicle B is the reference vehicle, AD in FIG. 87a, may be given by thearc length of an FP curve (from the curve start to the collision area)and the distance from the start point to the curve start. For example,AD may be given by:

AD=arclength(FP, vehicleFPx ES, areaFPx)+D _(SP to ES)

[0530] where vehicleFPxES is the x-coordinate of vehicleFP at the startof the ellipse.

[0531] If vehicle A is the reference vehicle, AD may be found from

AD=min(areaFPx and areaLPx)−A start vehicleFPx

[0532] The distance for vehicleFP may then be estimated 8809 from thestarting point of a vehicle to the perception point, which is AC inFIGS. 87a and b from:

AC=AD−CD

[0533] where CD has been determined at step 8805. The method in FIG. 88may also include estimating 8811 the distance for vehicleCP from thestarting point of a vehicle (point E) to the collision area (point G orvehicleCP at areaCP), which is EG in FIGS. 87a and b. If vehicle B isthe reference vehicle, EG in FIG. 88a may be estimated from the arclength of a CP curve from the curve start to point G and the distancefrom the start point to the curve start. A “CP curve” is mathematicalrelationship, such as a portion of an ellipse, representing thetrajectory of vehicleCP. For example, EG may be given by:

EG=arclength(CP, B vehicleCPx ES, areaCPx)+D _(SP to ES)

[0534] If vehicle A is the reference vehicle, EG may be found from

EG=areaCPx−A start vehicleCPx

[0535] An embodiment of the method in FIG. 88 may include estimating8813 the time for vehicleCP to travel from the point when vehicleFP isat the perception point (point F) to when vehicleCP is at areaCP (pointG). t_(FG) may be determined by:

t_(FG)=t_(EG)−t_(EF)

[0536] t_(EG), the time to travel distance EG, may be estimated from theinitial velocity of a vehicle (v₀), the acceleration (a_(A)), and themaximum curve velocity (v_(MC)).

[0537] In general, the time to travel a distance with no accelerationmay be determined by the distance divided by the velocity. Furthermore,the time to travel a distance with acceleration may be determined from:

t=(v₀±(v₀ ²+2a d)^(1/2))/2

[0538] where a is the acceleration, d is the distance, and v₀ is theinitial velocity. However, if a vehicle is accelerating on a curve, thespeed is limited to the maximum curve velocity. The time for a vehicleto travel a distance d on a curve that reaches the maximum curvevelocity may include two portions, t₁ and t₂. t₁ is the time to reachthe maximum curve velocity:

t₁=(v_(MC)−v₀)/d

[0539] The time traveled at the maximum curve velocity is given by:

t₂=(d−d₁)/v_(MC)

[0540] where

d₁=v₀t₁+½ at₁ ²

[0541] In one embodiment, a function, timeToTravel(d, accelerating, v₀,a, max v, endv), may be used to determine the time to travel a givendistance, where “endv” is the velocity at the endpoint of a trajectory.“Accelerating” refers to whether the vehicle is accelerating or not. ThetimeToTravel function may also determine the velocity at the endpoint.

[0542] For example, t_(EG) may be estimated by:

t_(EG)=timeToTravel(EG, accelerating, v₀, a_(A), v_(MC), v_(G))

[0543] a_(A) is a positive acceleration. In one embodiment, pseudo-codefor the function timeToTravel may be given by: timeToTravel(d,accelerating, v, a, maxv, &endv) if d<0 d = 0 if accelerating or a <> 0if maxv given // on a curve v = min(v, maxv) // get time to reach maxvt1 = (vmax − v)/a // how far travelled in that time d1 = v * t1 + .5 *a * t1*t1 if d1 <= d // reached maxv before distance travelled endv =maxv // remaining distance d−d1 covered at constant speed // total timeis time accelerating + time at constant t = t1 + (d−d1) / maxv else //never reached maxv if not solveQuadratic(.5*a, v, −1*d, t) error!!//else t is the time else // unconstrained acceleration if v = 0 t =sqrt(2 * d / a) else if not solveQuadratic(.5*a, v, −1*d, t) error!!//else t is the time endv = v + at else // constant speed if maxv givenv = min(v, maxv) t =d/v endv = v

[0544] As used herein, the maximum curve velocity (v_(MC)) may be thespeed of a turning vehicle at which the driver of the vehicleexperiences a specified gravitational force in a direction outward fromthe curve. The maximum curve velocity may be applicable to vehicle Bwhen it is turning and accelerating. In one embodiment, the specifiedgravitational force may be the maximum force that a driver maycomfortably tolerate.

[0545] The maximum curve velocity may depend on whether the curve radiusis increasing or decreasing. For example, for accident type 2

b<a: decreasing curve radius

b≧a: increasing curve radius

[0546] where a and b are radii of an ellipse shown in FIG. 85.Similarly, for accident types 3, 4, and 5

b<a: increasing curve radius

b≧a: decreasing curve radius

[0547] In one embodiment, the maximum curve speed for an ellipse may beapproximated by the maximum the speed for an equivalent circle. Theradius of an equivalent circle may be determined from:

decreasing radius, r=min(a, b)

increasing radius, r=(a+b)/2

[0548] In an embodiment, the maximum curve speed may be estimated from apercentage of a critical curve speed (CCS). The critical curve speed isdefined as the speed beyond which a vehicle slides out of a turn.Alternatively, the maximum curve speed may be estimated using agravitational force that a driver tolerates during a turn. The speed atwhich a driver would experience the tolerated gravitational force may begiven as

CCS (in miles per hour)=3.86((radius in feet*C _(f))^(1/2)

[0549] where C_(f) is the coefficient of friction between a vehicle anda roadway. In some embodiments, C_(f) may be between about 0.3 and about0.5. In other embodiments, C_(f) may be between about 0.2 and 0.3. Incertain embodiments, C_(f) may be between about 0.5 and 0.6.

[0550] In one embodiment, t_(EF) may be determined from t_(AC). t_(EF)is the same as t_(AC) since all of the points on a vehicle traveltogether, and, therefore, take the same amount of time to travel. t_(AC)may be determined from distance AC, the initial velocity of a vehicle,the acceleration, and the maximum curve velocity. For example, t_(AC)may be estimated by:

t_(AC)=timeToTravel(AC, accelerating, v₀, a_(A), v_(MC), v_(C))

[0551] An embodiment of a method of using the speed, time, and distanceof vehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart inFIG. 72 may also include estimating 7209 a location of a reactingvehicle. In one embodiment, t_(FG) for the reference vehicle may be usedto estimate a location of the reacting vehicle. In certain embodiments,the position of the reacting vehicle at time, t_(FG), before thecollision may be used to assess an opportunity of the reacting vehicleto avoid the accident. At t_(FG) before the collision, both thereference vehicle and the reacting vehicle may have at least someopportunity to notice one another. Therefore, t_(FG) before thecollision may be the earliest point at which the vehicles may havestarted to perceive, react, and brake.

[0552]FIG. 87a and FIG. 87b will be referred to in embodiments ofmethods of locating the reacting vehicle. The location of the reactingvehicle t_(FG) before the collision may be at point F in FIG. 87a andFIG. 87b. Therefore, the reacting vehicle may be pushed back a distanceFG_(RV) from the location of the collision. t_(FG) may be referred to ast_(PB). In an embodiment, estimating the location of the reactingvehicle may depend on its actions prior to the accident. The actions mayinclude continuing from a constant rate of speed, traveling at aconstant speed and then braking, and accelerating from a stop.

[0553] In some embodiments, if the action of the reacting vehicle iscontinuing from a constant rate of speed then:

EF_(RV)=v₀ t_(AC)

[0554] where t_(AC) is determined at step 8813 in FIG. 88. In addition,FG_(RV) may be determined from:

FG_(RV)=v₀ t_(PB)

[0555] where v₀ is the initial velocity of the reacting vehicle andt_(PB) is determined at step 8813 in FIG. 88.

[0556]FIG. 89 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method oflocating the reacting vehicle if the vehicle was traveling at a constantspeed and then braked. The method may include obtaining 8901 a time toperceive and react or perception-reaction time (t_(PR)). t_(PR) refersto the time required for a driver to perceive and react to danger.t_(PR) may depend on the weather, lighting, and type of roadway. Table 6lists perception-reaction times for various roadways and weather andlighting conditions. TABLE 6 PERCEPTION-REACTION (PR) TIMES FOR VARIOUSROADWAYS AND WEATHER AND LIGHTING CONDITIONS PR Time (sec) WeatherLighting Roadway 1.5 Clear Daylight — 1.5 Cloudy Daylight — 1.5 MistingRain Daylight — 2.5 — Daylight Curved 2.5 — Daylight Hillcrest 2.5Light-Moderate Rain Daylight — 2.5 Light-Moderate Snow Daylight — 2.5Clear Dawn — 2.5 Cloudy Dawn — 2.5 Clear Dusk — 2.5 Cloudy Dusk — 2.5Misting Rain Dawn — 2.5 Misting Rain Dusk — 2.5 Clear Night w/Streetlights — 2.5 Cloudy Night w/ Streetlights — 2.5 Misting Rain Nightw/ Streetlights — 3.5 — Night w/ Streetlights Curved 3.5 — Night w/Streetlights Hillcrest 3.5 Light-Moderate Rain Night w/ Streetlights —3.5 Light-Moderate Snow Night w/ Streetlights — 3.5 Clear Night w/oStreetlights — 3.5 Cloudy Night w/o Streetlights — 3.5 Misting RainNight w/o Streetlights — 3.5 Heavy Rain Daylight — 3.5 Heavy SnowDaylight — 3.5 Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain Daylight — 4.0 — Night w/oStreetlights Curved 4.0 — Night w/o Streetlights Hillcrest 4.0Light-Moderate Rain Night w/o Streetlights — 4.0 Light-Moderate SnowNight w/o Streetlights — 4.0 Heavy Rain Dawn — 4.0 Heavy Snow Dawn — 4.0Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain Dawn — 4.0 Heavy Rain Dusk — 4.0 Heavy SnowDusk — 4.0 Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain Dusk — 4.0 Heavy Rain Night w/Streetlights — 4.0 Heavy Snow Night w/ Streetlights — 4.0Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain Night w/ Streetlights — 4.0 Heavy Rain Nightw/o Streetlights — 4.0 Heavy Snow Night w/o Streetlights — 4.0Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain Night w/o Streetlights — 4.0Fog/Smoke/Smog/Dust Daylight — 4.0 Fog w/ Rain Daylight —

[0557] The acceleration due to braking force (a_(B)), which is negative,may then be obtained 8903. It is determined at decision point 8905whether there were skid marks at the accident scene. If there were skidmarks, the maximum speed a vehicle could have been traveling (v_(SM))may be estimated 8907 from skid mark length (d_(SM)) and estimated speedat impact

v_(SM)=(2a d _(SM)+([Speed at Impact])²)^(1/2)

[0558] At decision point 8909, it is determined whether v_(SM)<v₀. Ifthe answer is yes, then v₀=v_(SM). The method then proceeds to step8913. If the decision point 8909 is negative, then the method proceedsto step 8913. If the answer to decision point 8905 is negative, thenmethod also proceeds to step 8913. The time required to completely stopmay then be estimated 8913. In one embodiment, the time required tocompletely stop (t_(stop)) may be determined by:

t_(stop)=t_(PR)+v₀/a_(B)

[0559] The method then may include determining FG_(RV) at step 8915. Ift_(PB)>t_(stop), then it is possible for the reacting vehicle to stop atsome time between the time at the perception point and the time at thecollision point. The trajectory may include a portion at a constantspeed and a portion during which the vehicle is braking. In this case,distance FG_(RV) may be estimated by:

FG _(RV)=v₀ ²/2a_(B)+(t_(PB)−t_(braking))v₀

[0560] If t_(PB)≦t_(PR), it is not possible for a reacting vehicle tostart braking before the collision. The reacting vehicle would betraveling at constant speed between the time at the perception point andthe time at the collision point. Therefore, FG_(RV) is given by:

FG_(RV)=v₀ t_(PB)

[0561] If t_(PR)<t_(PB)<t_(stop), then a portion of the time between theperception point and the collision point is perceiving and reacting anda portion is braking. FG_(RV) may be given by:

FG _(RV)=t_(PR) v₀+(t_(brake) v₀−½ a_(B) t_(brake) ²)

[0562]FIG. 90 illustrates an embodiment of a method of estimatingFG_(RV) if the reacting vehicle accelerated from a stop prior to theaccident. The method may include obtaining 9001 the positiveacceleration (a_(A)). At decision point 9003, it is determined whetherthe reacting vehicle is turning vehicle B and if the accident type isnot 17. If the answer is positive, then the maximum turning velocity(v_(MC)) may be obtained 9005. The method may proceed to step 9007. Ifdecision point 9003 is negative, then the distance to the collisionpoint, EG in FIGS. 87a and b, may be obtained 9007. For vehicle B withaccident type 17 or vehicle A, then

Vehicle A: EG _(RV)=vehicleCPx−A start vehicleCPx

Vehicle B: EG _(RV)=vehicleCPy−B start vehicleCPy

[0563] where A vehicleCPx is the x-coordinate of the collision point atthe start point of vehicle A and B vehicleCPy is the y-coordinate of thecollision point at the start point of vehicle B. For vehicle B when theaccident type is not 17, EG may be given by the arc length of the CPcurve between the curve start point and the collision area and thedistance between the start point and the curve start. For example, ifthe curve is a portion of an ellipse:

EG _(RV)=arclength(CP, vehicleCPx ES, areaCPx)+D _(SP to ES)

[0564] At decision point 9009, it is determined whether t_(PB) is lessthan the t_(PR), the perception-reaction time. If yes, then the reactingvehicle has no opportunity to brake. If the reacting vehicle is notturning (vehicle B with accident type 17 or vehicle A) then

FG _(RV)=a_(A)(t_(EG)−t_(PB))t_(PB)+½ a_(A) t² _(PB)

[0565] If the reacting vehicle was turning, then EF_(RV) may first beestimated. If the time to reach the maximum turning velocity (v_(MC)) isless than t_(EG), then the turning vehicle is accelerating on a portionof EF_(RV) and traveling at constant v_(MC) along a portion of EF_(RV):

EF _(RV)=½ a_(A)t²+(t_(EF)−t)v_(MC)

[0566] where t is the time to reach v_(MC). If the time to reach themaximum turning velocity is greater than or equal to t_(EG), then

EF_(RV)=½ a_(A)t_(EF) ²

[0567] FG_(RV) may then be determined from

FG _(RV) =EG _(RV) −EF _(RV)

[0568] If the answer to decision point 9009 is negative, it isdetermined whether t_(PB) is greater than t_(EG) at decision point 9013.If the answer is positive, then reacting vehicle had no opportunity tobrake, therefore, FG_(RV) may be set to EG_(RV) at 9015. If decisionpoint 9013 is negative, then the reacting vehicle has the opportunity tobrake and the braking time may be estimated 9017 from

t_(B)=t_(FG)−t_(PR)

[0569] At decision point 9019, it is determined whether the reactingvehicle is turning or is not braking. If the answer to decision point9019 is yes, the time the vehicle traveled at constant speed isestimated 9021. At decision point 9023, it is determined if the time thevehicle traveled at constant speed is less then or equal to zero. If theanswer is no, then FG_(RV) may be estimated 9025. First, it isdetermined whether the time the vehicle traveled at constant speed isless than the perception-reaction time. In this caseFG_(RV)=EG_(RV)−EF_(RV). If the time the vehicle traveled at constantspeed is greater than or equal to the perception-reaction time, then

FG _(RV)=v_(MC) t_(PR)+v_(MC)t_(B)−½ a_(B)t_(B) ²

[0570] If decision point 9023 is positive, the method proceeds to step9027.

[0571] If decision point 9019 is negative, then the reacting vehicleaccelerated the entire time 9027. FG_(RV) may be estimated by

FG _(RV) =EG _(RV)−½(t_(A)−t_(PR))²

[0572] where t_(A) is the total time spent accelerating.

[0573] An embodiment of a method of using the speed, time, and distanceof vehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart inFIG. 72 may also include estimating 7211 a time for a reference vehicleto clear the collision area shown in FIG. 74. At the time of thecollision, vehicleCP of vehicle A and vehicle B substantially coincideat areaCP in the collision area, as shown by point 7441 in FIG. 74. Thetime to clear the collision area may be the time for a vehicle to travelfrom areaCP to a point at which the entire vehicle has exited thecollision area. The time to clear may be equivalent to the time forvehicleLP (e.g., point 7417 in FIG. 74) to reach areaLP (e.g., point7431 in FIG. 74) starting at the time of the collision.

[0574] In an embodiment, the time to clear may include two portions. Afirst portion may be the time for the collision point, vehicleCP, (e.g.,point 7421 in FIG. 74) to exit the collision area starting from the timeof the collision. A second portion may be the time for vehicleLP to exitthe collision area starting from the time that vehicleCP exits thecollision area. The time for the vehicle to clear the collision area maybe the sum of the two portions.

[0575] In accident type 4 or 5, as shown in FIG. 4, the collision lanefor the turning car, vehicle B, is the same as the lane that it istargeting. Consequently, neither vehicle A nor vehicle B may clear thecollision area. The time to clear may then be set to a relatively highvalue, for example, 1000 seconds.

[0576] A method for estimating the time for vehicle A to clear thecollision area is depicted in the flow chart in FIG. 91. A diagramdepicting vehicle A clearing the collision area is given in FIGS. 92aand 92 b. The method may include estimating 9101 a distance from areaCPto the edge of collision area, which is GH in FIGS. 92a and 92 b. Thedistance from vehicleCP to vehicleLP, which is HI in FIGS. 92a and 92 b,may then be estimated 9103. The total distance to clear the collisionarea may be estimated 9105 by:

d_(clear) =GH+HI

[0577] GH may be estimated from:

GH=max(areaLPx, areaFPx)−A areaCPx

[0578] HI is the distance from vehicleCP to vehicleLP and may bedetermined using Table 4.

[0579] The method may include estimating 9107 the time to clear,t_(Aclear), from total distance to clear. If the action of vehicle Aprior to the accident was constant speed or slowing, then the time toclear may be

t_(Aclear)=d_(clear)/v₀

[0580] If the action of vehicle A prior to the accident was acceleratingfrom a stop then, the time to clear may be estimated from d_(clear), theinitial speed at point G in FIGS. 92a and 92 b (v_(G)), and a_(A). Forexample, the timeToTravel function may be used. v_(G) may be estimatedfrom distance EG, v₀, a_(A), and v_(MC). The timeToTravel function mayalso be used to estimate v_(G). Distance EG may be estimated by themethod depicted in FIG. 88 at step 8811.

[0581] A method for determining the time for vehicle B to clear thecollision area is depicted in FIG. 93. The method may apply if vehicle Bis the reference vehicle and the reaction of vehicle B prior to theaccident is braking from accelerating or continuing from accelerating.The method may include estimating 9301 a distance from vehicleCP atstart to vehicleCP at areaCP (EG on FIG. 87a). If vehicle B is thereference vehicle, EG is estimated at step 8811 in FIG. 88. If vehicle Bis the reacting vehicle, then

EG=EF _(RV) +FG _(RV)

[0582] Distances EF_(RV) and FG_(RV) may be determined using the methoddepicted in FIG. 90.

[0583] The time for vehicle B to travel EG may then be estimated 9303.If vehicle B is the reference vehicle, t_(EG) is estimated at step 8813in FIG. 88. If vehicle B is the reacting vehicle, then t_(EG) may becalculated from the initial velocity, acceleration, maximum curvaturevelocity, and the final velocity of vehicle B, for example:

t_(EG)=timeToTravel(EG, v₀ , B's a_(A), v_(MC), v_(G))

[0584] The method may further include estimating 9305 a distance fromvehicleLP at the start point to vehicleLP at areaLP along the LPtrajectory. For example, the distance may be estimated as the arc lengthalong the LP curve from the start of the curve to areaLP and thedistance from the start point to the start of the curve. For example, ifthe curve is a portion of an ellipse:

d_(LP)=arclength(LP, B's vehicleLP x ES, areaLPx)+D _(SP to ES)

[0585] The time for vehicle B to travel the distance from vehicleLP atstart to vehicleLP at areaLP (t_(LP)) may then be estimated 9307 fromthe initial velocity, acceleration, and maximum curvature velocity. Forexample,

t_(LP)=timeToTravel(d_(LP), v₀ , B's a_(A), v_(MC), v_(areaLP))

[0586] The time for vehicle B to clear the collision area may beestimated 9309 from

t_(Bclear)=t_(LP)−t_(EG)

[0587] Alternatively, if vehicle B is the reacting vehicle and thereaction of vehicle B prior to the accident is braking from a constantspeed, then the distance to clear may be estimated from the arc lengthalong the LP curve from areaCPx to areaLPx plus the distance fromvehicleCP to vehicleLP

d_(clear)=arclength(LP, areaCPx, areaLPx)+abs(vehicleCP−vehicleLP)

[0588] The time to clear may be calculated from D_(clear), the initialvelocity, acceleration, and maximum curve velocity, for example,

t_(Bclear)=timeToTravel(d_(clear), v₀ , B's a_(A), v_(MC), v_(areaLP))

[0589] An embodiment of a method of using the speed, time, and distanceof vehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart inFIG. 72 may also include estimating 7213 a time for a reacting vehicleto travel to the collision area such that the vehicle avoids an accidentwith a reference vehicle. The time may be estimated using the time forthe reference vehicle to clear the collision area. FIG. 94 depicts aflow chart of an embodiment of a method for estimating a time for areacting vehicle to avoid the accident. The method may includeestimating 9401 the distance from the perception point, point C in FIG.87, to the collision area, to point D in FIG. 87. Distance CD may beestimated from distance AC and distance AD:

CD _(RV) =AD _(RV) −AC _(RV)

[0590] Distance AC_(RV) may be estimated using the time for the reactingvehicle to travel EF_(RV). If the reacting vehicle accelerated from astop, then the time to travel EF_(RV) may be

timeToTravel=(EF _(RV), accel=yes, v₀, v_(MC), v_(F))

[0591] If vehicle B's action prior to the accident was constant speed orslowing then the time to travel EF_(RV) may be

timeToTravel=(EF _(RV), accel=no, v₀, v_(MC), v_(F))

[0592] Since the reacting vehicle's t_(EF) is the same as the reactingvehicle's t_(AC), then

AC _(RV)=t_(AC)v₀+½ a_(A)t_(AC) ²

[0593] AD_(RV) for vehicle A when vehicle A accelerates from a stop maybe given by

min(areaFPx, areaLPx)−Start vehicle12 x

[0594] For vehicle B, AD_(RV) may be given by:

AD_(RV)=arclength(FP, vehicleFPx ES, areaFPx)+D _(SP to ES)

[0595] Distance CD may then be estimated. For vehicle A that hasconstant speed or is slowing before the accident

CD _(RV) =FG _(RV)−(areaCP x−min(areaFPx, areaLP x)−distance fromvehicle12 to impact point)

[0596] For a vehicle A that is not at constant speed or is slowingbefore the accident and vehicle B

CD _(RV) =AD _(RV) −AC _(RV)

[0597] The method may also include estimating 9403 the time (t₁) for thereacting vehicle to travel CD_(RV). t₁ may correspond to the actual timefor the reacting vehicle to travel from the perception point to thecollision area. t₁ may be based on the reactions of the reacting vehicleprior to the accident. For example, if the reaction is braking from aconstant speed, then t₁ is the solution to the quadratic equation:

V₀t_(PR)+V₀t₁−½ a_(B)t₁ ² =CD

[0598] If the reacting vehicle was braking from accelerating, it may bedesirable to estimate the distance the vehicle travels during theperception-reaction time to the braking point (d₁) and the distancetraveled during braking to point D, d₂. d₁ may be given by:

d₁=v_(c)t_(PR)+½ a_(A)t_(PR) ²

[0599] It may be advantageous to estimate the speed of the vehicle whenit arrives at the braking point

v₂=(t_(AC)+t_(PR))a_(A)

[0600] d₂, may also be estimated from CD and d₁

d₂ =CD−d₁

[0601] If d₂ is less then the nominal stopping distance, then t₁ isequal to the perception reaction-time and the time to travel d₂:

t₁=t_(PR)+timeToTravel(d₂, acceleration, V₂, −a_(B), V_(D))

[0602] where the nominal stopping distance is V ² ²/(2*C _(f) *g).

[0603] If d₂ is greater than or equal to the nominal stopping distanceit may be likely that the vehicle may have come to a complete stop priorto the accident if the vehicle had braked as hard as possible when theaverage driver would have recognized danger. It may be likely that thereported speed of the vehicle was incorrect, the vehicle did not usefull braking force, and/or the vehicle did not notice the other vehiclein a reasonable amount of time.

[0604] If the vehicle reaction is continuing from a constant speed, then

t₁=timeToTravel(CD, acceleration, v₀, v_(MC), v_(D))

[0605] If the vehicle reaction is continuing from accelerating, then

t₁=timeToTravel(CD, acceleration, v_(C), a_(A), v_(MC), v_(D))

[0606] The method may further include estimating 9405 the time (t_(x))for the reacting vehicle to travel distance CD to avoid the accident.t_(x) may be the time for the reacting vehicle to reach a collision areaafter the reference vehicle clears the collision area. In oneembodiment, t_(x) may be the sum of the actual time for the reactingvehicle to travel distance CD and the amount of time for the referencevehicle to clear the collision area:

Vehicle A, t_(x)=t₁+t_(Bclear), where t₁ is for vehicle A

Vehicle B, t_(x)=t₁+t_(Aclear), where t₁ is for vehicle B

[0607] t_(Aclear), may be estimated in the method depicted in FIG. 91 atstep 9107. t_(Bclear), may be estimated in the method depicted in FIG.93 at step 9309. t_(x) may be used to assess whether the reactingvehicle may have avoided the accident.

[0608] An embodiment of a method of using the speed, time, and distanceof vehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart inFIG. 72 may also include assessing 7215 an opportunity of the reactingvehicle to avoid the accident. A method may include selecting aspecified speed of a vehicle involved in an accident. A specified speedmay be, for example, the actual speed of a vehicle, the speed limit forthe vehicle, or the safe speed for the vehicle. The method may alsoinclude assessing whether the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid theaccident at the specified speed. In one embodiment, the vehicle may havethe opportunity to avoid the accident by stopping before the accident.In another embodiment, the vehicle may have the opportunity to avoid theaccident by delaying at the specified speed of the vehicle. In otherembodiments, the vehicle may have the opportunity to avoid the accidentby maintaining the specified speed of the vehicle. In addition, thevehicle may attempt to avoid the accident by braking.

[0609] In an embodiment, the method may include assessing an effect onliability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident. The effect onliability may include a factor including a contribution to liabilitybased on the specified speed of the vehicle. In addition, the effect onliability may include a factor including a contribution based anoutcome. The outcome may include whether the vehicle had the opportunityto stop, delay, or maintain the specified speed to avoid the accident.The effect on liability may also include a contribution including afactor based on whether the vehicle reacted by braking to avoid theaccident. For example, Table 7 lists factor shifts in liabilityaccording to one embodiment corresponding to the specified speed,reaction, and outcome. Experienced claims adjusters may estimate thefactor shift values. The total factor shift from the opportunity toavoid may be the sum of the specified speed factor shift, the reactionfactor shift, and the outcome factor shift. TABLE 7 CONTRIBUTION TOLIABILITY FROM OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID Factor Factor Factor Specified ShiftShift Shift Speed (%) Reaction (%) Outcome (%) Actual 5 No Braking 5Stop 5 Speed Limit 3 Braking 0 Maintain 3 Safe 0 — — Delay 1

[0610]FIG. 95 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forassessing the opportunity of a reacting vehicle to avoid an accident.The method may include estimating 9501 a speed for avoiding an accident.A “speed for avoiding” may be an approximate speed that allows areacting vehicle an opportunity to avoid the accident. A vehicle mayhave an opportunity to avoid an accident between the perception pointand the collision area (distance CD in FIG. 87). In one embodiment, aspeed for avoiding may be an approximate maximum speed of a vehicle suchthat the vehicle avoids the accident by stopping before the accident(Speed_(ToStop)). In such a situation, a vehicle may be traveling at theSpeed_(ToStop) and then brakes to stop before the accident. A speed foravoiding may also include an approximate maximum speed to avoid anaccident by maintaining a constant rate of speed(Speed_(MaintainToDelay)). In addition, speed for avoiding may be anapproximate maximum speed to avoid an accident by braking withoutstopping (Speed_(BrakeToDelay)).

[0611] Furthermore, the method may also include providing 9503 aspecified speed of a vehicle involved in an accident. The speed foravoiding may be compared 9505 to the specified speed.

[0612] In certain embodiments, the method may further include assessing9507 the ability of the vehicle to avoid the accident based on thecomparison. An affect on liability may be assessed 9509 based on theability of the vehicle to avoid the accident.

[0613] In one embodiment, the Speed_(ToStop) for a reacting vehicle maybe obtained from the total time to stop. The total time to stop may bethe sum of the perception-reaction time and the time to brake

t_(Stop)=t_(PR)+t_(Brake)

[0614] If the perception-reaction time is greater than t_(x), the timefor a reference vehicle to clear the collision area, the reactingvehicle would not have the opportunity to brake. In this case, theSpeed_(ToStop) may not be determined. If the perception-reaction time isless than t_(x), then the Speed_(ToStop) may be given by

Speed_(ToStop)=(t_(x)−t_(PR))*a_(B)

[0615] where a_(B) is the acceleration due to braking.

[0616] In an embodiment, Speed_(MaintainToDelay) may be obtained from

Speed_(MaintainToDelay)=Distance Traveled/Time spent at Constant Rate ofSpeed

[0617] It follows that Speed_(MaintainToDelay) may be given by

Speed_(MaintainToDelay)=CD/t_(x)

[0618] where distance CD is from FIG. 87. In some embodiments, theSpeed_(BrakeToDelay) may be obtained using a formula for the totalstopping distance

D _(Total)=d_(PR)+d_(NominalStop)

[0619] where d_(PR) (=Speed_(BrakeToDelay)*t_(PR)) is the distancetraveled during the perception-reaction time and

d_(NominalStop)=Speed_(BrakeToDelay)*(t_(x)−t_(PR))−½a_(B)(t_(x)−t_(PR))²)

[0620] If the perception-reaction time is greater than t_(x), a vehiclewould not have the opportunity to brake, and the Speed_(BrakeToDelay)may not be determined. The Speed_(BrakeToDelay) may be given by

Speed_(BrakeToDelay) =CD/t_(x)+a_(B)(t_(x)−t_(PR))²/2t_(x)

[0621] Table 8 lists assessments of the opportunity to avoid an accidentbased on comparisons of a specified speed of a reacting vehicle to speedfor avoiding. Each case in Table 8 includes a comparison of a specifiedspeed to a speed for avoiding, whether the vehicle attempted to avoidthe accident by braking, and outcome of avoiding the accident. Each casemay be associated with a contribution to liability. The contribution toliability may be based on the specified speed, braking, and/or themanner of avoiding the accident.

[0622] In an embodiment, an assessment may include whether a vehicle mayhave been able to stop before the accident at actual speed. Cases 1 and2 are situations in which the actual speed is less than theSpeed_(ToStop). For case 1, it may be likely that the vehicle may havecome to a complete stop prior to the accident if the vehicle had brakedas hard as possible when the average driver would have recognizeddanger. The accident may have occurred because the reported speed of thevehicle may be incorrect, the vehicle may not have used full brakingforce, and/or the vehicle may not have noticed the other vehicle in areasonable amount of time. In case 2, it may also be likely that thevehicle may have come to a complete stop if the vehicle had braked ashard as possible when the average driver would have recognized danger.

[0623] In other embodiments, an assessment may include whether a vehiclemay have been able to delay enough to avoid the accident by braking atthe actual speed. Cases 3 and 4 are situations in which the actual speedis less than or equal to Speed_(BrakeToDelay). In case 3, it may belikely that the vehicle may have delayed enough to avoid the accident ifthe vehicle had braked as hard as possible when the average driver wouldhave recognized danger. The accident may have occurred because thereported speed of the vehicle may be incorrect, the vehicle may not haveused full braking force, and/or the vehicle may not have recognized theother vehicle in a reasonable amount of time. In case 4, it may belikely that the vehicle may have delayed enough to avoid the accident ifthe vehicle had braked as hard as possible when the average driver wouldhave recognized danger.

[0624] In one embodiment, an assessment of whether a vehicle may haveavoided an accident may be based on whether the vehicle was acceleratingfrom a stop prior to the accident. If the vehicle was accelerating froma stop, it may be determined if t_(x)>t_(PR). If t_(x)>t_(PR) it may belikely the vehicle may not have avoided the accident even if the vehiclehad recognized the accident when the average driver would have and hadused full braking force. If the reaction of the vehicle was braking,then the total shift in liability to the vehicle may be substantiallyzero. If the reaction of the vehicle was not braking, there may be ashift in liability to the vehicle, for example, about 10%.

[0625] Alternatively, if t_(x) is less than or equal to t_(PR), then itmay be likely the vehicle may not have avoided the accident even if thevehicle had recognized the accident when the average driver would haveand had used full breaking force. The shift in liability may besubstantially zero.

[0626] In some embodiments, an assessment may include whether a vehiclemay have been able to stop before the accident at the speed limit. Cases5 and 6 are situations in which the speed limit is less than or equal toSpeed_(ToStop). In case 5, if the vehicle had been traveling at thespeed limit, it may be likely that the vehicle may have come to acomplete stop if full braking force were applied when the average driverwould have recognized and reacted to the other vehicle. In case 6, itmay be likely that the vehicle may have come to a complete stop had thevehicle used full braking force when the average driver would haverecognized and reacted to the other vehicle.

[0627] In another embodiment, an assessment may include whether avehicle may have delayed enough to avoid the accident by maintaining thespeed limit. Cases 7 and 8 are situations in which the speed limit isless than or equal to Speed_(MaintainToDelay). In case 7, if the vehiclehad been traveling at the speed limit, it may be likely that theaccident may have been avoided, even without braking. In case 8, if thevehicle had been traveling at the speed limit, it may be likely that theaccident would have been avoided.

[0628] In certain embodiments, an assessment may include whether avehicle may have been able to delay enough to avoid the accident bybraking at the speed limit. Cases 9 and 10 are situations in which thespeed limit is less than or equal to Speed_(BrakeToDelay). In cases 9and 10, if the vehicle had been traveling at the speed limit, it may belikely that the accident may have been avoided if the vehicle had usedfull braking force when the average driver would have recognized andreacted to the other vehicle.

[0629] In one embodiment, an assessment may include whether a vehiclemay have been able to stop before the accident at the safe speed. Cases11 and 12 are situations in which the safe speed is less than or equalto Speed_(SpeedToStop). In cases 11 and 12, the vehicle may not haveavoided the accident at the speed limit. If the vehicle had beentraveling at the safe speed, it may be likely that the vehicle may havecome to a complete stop had the vehicle used full braking force when theaverage driver would have recognized and reacted to the other vehicle.

[0630] In an embodiment, an assessment may include whether a vehicle mayhave been able to delay enough to avoid the accident by maintaining thesafe speed. Cases 13 and 14 are situations in which the safe speed isless than or equal to Speed_(MaintainToDelay). In case 13, the vehiclemay not have avoided the accident at the speed limit. If the vehicle hadbeen traveling at the safe speed, it may be likely that the accident mayhave been avoided, even without braking. In case 14, the vehicle may nothave avoided the accident at the speed limit. If the vehicle had beentraveling at the safe speed, it may be likely that the accident may havebeen avoided.

[0631] In some embodiments, an assessment may include whether a vehiclemay have been able to delay enough to avoid by braking at the safespeed. Cases 15 and 16 are situations in which the safe speed is lessthan or equal to Speed_(BrakeToDelay). In cases 15 and 16, the vehiclemay not have avoided the accident at the speed limit. If the vehicle hadbeen traveling at the safe speed, it may be likely that the accident mayhave been avoided if the vehicle had used full braking force, when theaverage driver would have recognized and reacted to the other vehicle.

[0632] Cases 17, 18, and 19 are situations in which the safe speed isgreater than the Speed_(BrakeToDelay). Cases 17 and 18 correspond tosituations in which t_(x)>t_(PR). For both cases 17 and 18, it may beunlikely that the vehicle could have avoided the accident at its actualspeed, speed limit, or even the safe speed for conditions. Case 19corresponds to a situation in which t_(x) is greater than or equal tot_(PR). For case 19, it may be unlikely that the vehicle may haveavoided the accident at its actual speed, speed limit, or even the safespeed for conditions. TABLE 8 ASSESSMENT OF REACTING VEHICLE Factor CaseSpeed Comparison Braking Outcome Shift (%) 1 Actual Speed ≦ Yes Stop 10Speed_(ToStop) 2 Actual Speed ≦ No Stop 15 Speed_(ToStop) 3 Actual Speed≦ Yes Delay 6 Speed_(BrakeToDelay) 4 Actual Speed ≦ No Delay 11Speed_(BrakeToDelay) 5 Speed Limit ≦ Yes Stop 5 Speed_(ToStop) 6 SpeedLimit ≦ No Stop 13 Speed_(ToStop) 7 Speed Limit ≦ Yes Maintain 6Speed_(MaintainToDelay) 8 Speed Limit ≦ No Maintain 11Speed_(MaintainToDelay) 9 Speed Limit ≦ Yes Delay 4 Speed_(BrakeToDelay)10 Speed Limit ≦ No Delay 9 Speed_(BrakeToDelay) 11 Safe Speed ≦ YesStop 5 Speed_(SpeedToStop) 12 Safe Speed ≦ No Stop 10Speed_(SpeedToStop) 13 Safe Speed ≦ Yes Maintain 3Speed_(MaintainToDelay) 14 Safe Speed ≦ No Maintain 8Speed_(MaintainToDelay) 15 Safe Speed ≦ Yes Delay 1 Speed_(BrakeToDelay)16 Safe Speed ≦ No Delay 6 Speed_(BrakeToDelay) 17 Safe Speed >Speed_(BrakeToDelay) Yes Delay — and t_(x) > t_(PR) 18 Safe Speed >Speed_(BrakeToDelay) No Delay — nd t_(x) > t_(PR) 19 Safe Speed >Speed_(BrakeToDelay) — Delay — and t_(x) ≦ t_(PR)

[0633] In one embodiment, liability in an accident may be assessed froman estimated actual speed of a vehicle. FIG. 96 depicts a flow chart ofan embodiment of a method of using a computer system for assessingliability in an accident using the estimated actual speed of a vehicle.The method may include estimating 9601 an actual speed of a vehicle inan accident. At least one specified speed of the vehicle may be provided9603 to the computer system. A specified speed may include a safe speedfor a vehicle for the conditions at the scene of the accident or a speedlimit for the vehicle. The method may further include comparing 9605 theactual speed to at least one specified speed. An effect on liability maythen be assessed 9607 based on the comparison. The actual speed may, insome embodiments, be used to assess the liability of a straight vehicle(vehicle A) or a turning vehicle (vehicle B).

[0634] In one embodiment, a comparison may include determining an excessof the actual speed over a specified speed. For example, the relativeamount that the actual speed of a vehicle exceeds the speed limit(percent excess) for the vehicle may be given by

S _(LimitExcess)=(Actual Speed−Speed Limit)/Speed Limit * 100%

[0635] Similarly, the relative amount that the actual speed of a vehicleexceeds the safe speed for the vehicle may be given by

S _(SafeExcess)=(Actual Speed−Safe Speed)/Safe speed * 100%

[0636] In an embodiment, the safe speed may depend on the conditions ofthe road at the scene of an accident. For example, if the roadconditions are dry, then the safe speed may be the same as the speedlimit. Alternatively, if the conditions are not dry, the safe speed maybe calculated from the nominal dry stopping distance of a vehicle. Thenominal dry stopping distance may be given by

Nominal dry stopping distance=(Speed Limit)²/(2×dry C _(f)×g)

[0637] where dry C_(f) is the coefficient of friction between a vehicleand a dry road and g is the gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s²). Thesafe speed may then be calculated from

Safe speed=2 * actual C_(f) * g * nominal dry stopping distance]^(1/2)

[0638] where actual C_(f) is the coefficient of friction between thevehicle and the road at the scene of the accident.

[0639] In certain embodiments, the coefficient of friction may depend onthe road condition and road surface. Table 9 lists values of thecoefficient of friction for various road conditions and road surfaces.In other embodiments, the coefficient of friction may also be a functionof speed. Table 10 lists values of the coefficient of friction forvarious road surfaces, road conditions, and speeds. TABLE 9 COEFFICIENTOF FRICTION FOR VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES AND ROAD CONDITIONS CoefficientRoad Condition Road Surface of Friction Dry Concrete 0.70 Dry Asphalt0.68 Dry Gravel 0.70 Dry Dirt 0.50 Wet Concrete 0.58 Accumulated WaterConcrete 0.58 During Heavy Rain Muddy Concrete 0.58 Wet Asphalt 0.58Accumulated Water Asphalt 0.58 During Heavy Rain Muddy Asphalt 0.58 WetGravel 0.60 Accumulated Water Gravel 0.60 During Heavy Rain Muddy Gravel0.60 Wet Dirt 0.40 Accumulated Water Dirt 0.40 During Heavy Rain MuddyDirt 0.40 Accumulated Snow - Dry Not Considered 0.18 Accumulated Snow -Wet Not Considered 0.45 Hardpacked Snow - Dry Not Considered 0.43Hardpacked Snow - Wet Not Considered 0.45 Ice Patches Not Considered0.16 Ice Not Considered 0.16 Black Ice Not Considered 0.08

[0640] TABLE 10 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION FOR VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES ANDROAD CONDITIONS DRY WET Description Less than More than Less than Morethan of Road 30 MPH 30 MPH 30 MPH 30 MPH Surface From-To From-To From-ToFrom-To CONCRETE New, sharp  .80-1.20 .70-1.0 .50-.80 .40-.75 Traveled.60-.80 .60-.75 .45-.70 .45-.65 Polished .55-.75 .50-.65 .45-.65 .45-.60ASPHALT New, Sharp  .80-1.20 .65-1.0 .50-.80 .45-.75 Travelled .60-.80.55-.70 .45-.70 .40-.65 Polished .55-.75 .45-.65 .45-.65 .40-.60 ExcessTar .50-.60 .35-.60 .30-.60 .25-.55 GRAVEL Packed, Oiled .55-.85 .50-.80.40-.80 .40-.60 Loose .40-.70 .40-.70 .45-.75 .45-.75 CINDERS Packed.50-.70 .50-.70 .65-.75 .65-.75 ROCK Crushed .55-.75 .55-.75 .55-.75.55-.75 ICE Smooth .10-.25 .07-.20 .05-.10 .05-.10 SNOW Packed .30-.55.35-.55 .30-.60 .30-.60 Loose .10-.25 .10-.20 .30-.60 .30-.60

[0641] In certain embodiments, liability assessment may be based on thepercent excess of the actual speed over the speed limit or safe speed,S_(LimitExcess) or S_(SafeExcess), respectively. For example, acontribution to liability may be associated with at least one range ofpercent excess of the actual speed over the speed limit or safe speed.The contribution to liability may be referred to as a “raw speedfactor.” The raw speed factor may shift the liability for a vehiclebased on the percent excess of the actual speed. In one embodiment, amaximum shift value may be associated with a range of percent excess.

[0642] In one embodiment, the raw speed factor may be estimated bymultiplying a raw speed multiplier by a maximum shift value. The “rawspeed multiplier” may be provided by an experienced claims adjuster. The“maximum shift value” may be a maximum shift in liability due to thespeed of a vehicle that would be contemplated by an experienced claimsadjuster. Table 11 lists ranges of percent excess of the actual speedover the speed limit or safe speed for a vehicle. Table 11 also lists amaximum liability shift for each of the ranges of percent excessaccording to one embodiment. TABLE 11 RANGES OF PERCENT EXCESS OF ACTUALSPEED OVER THE SPEED LIMIT OR SAFE SPEED AND MAXIMUM LIABILITY SHIFTSS_(LimitExcess) or Maximum S_(SafeExcess) (%) Shift (%)  0-10 0 11-20 021-30 5 31-40 10 41-50 20 51-60 30 61-75 30 76-100 40 101 + 50

[0643] In an embodiment, liability assessment may be based on acomparison of actual speed and the speed limit for the vehicle. Forexample, if the actual speed is greater than the speed limit, thenS_(limitExcess) may be calculated. A shift in liability may then beassessed based on S_(limitExcess).

[0644] In other embodiments, liability assessment may be based on acomparison of the actual speed with the safe speed for the vehicle. Forexample, if the actual speed is greater than the safe speed, thenS_(SafeExcess), may be calculated. A shift in liability may then beassessed based on S_(SafeExcess).

[0645] In one embodiment, S_(SafeExcess) may be calculated if the actualspeed is greater than or equal to the safe speed and the actual speed isless than or equal to the speed limit. A shift in liability may then beassessed based on S_(limitExcess).

[0646] In an embodiment, if the actual speed is less than the safe speedand the speed limit, then no shift in liability may be assessed to avehicle.

[0647]FIG. 97 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forassessing the opportunity of a reacting vehicle to avoid an accident.The method may apply if the reaction of vehicle A and vehicle B beforean accident was braking from a constant rate of speed or braking fromaccelerating. The method may include estimating 9701 at least onestopping distance of a vehicle. A stopping distance may refer to anapproximate distance for a reacting vehicle to stop to avoid theaccident. For example, the stopping distance may be an approximatedistance to stop for a vehicle traveling at a specified speed. Thespecified speed may include an actual speed of the vehicle, a speedlimit for the vehicle, or the safe speed for the vehicle.

[0648] In an embodiment, the method may also include estimating 9703 aperception distance. A perception distance may refer to an approximatedistance from the accident at which the driver of a reacting vehiclesubstantially sensed danger of an accident. In an embodiment, theperception distance may be provided in units of vehicle length. Theability of the vehicle to avoid the accident may then be assessed 9705using the perception distance. The method may further include assessing9707 an effect on liability of the ability of the vehicle to avoid theaccident.

[0649] In one embodiment, the stopping distance for a vehicle travelingat an actual speed may be obtained from a nominal stopping distance andthe perception distance (D_(PR))

D _(StopActual)=Nominal Stopping Distance+t_(PR) * Actual Speed

where

Nominal Stopping Distance=[Actual Speed]²/(2*actual C _(f) * g)

[0650] The stopping distance at actual speed (D_(stopActual)) may thenbe given by:

D _(StopActual)=([Actual Speed]²/(2*actual C _(f)* g))+Actual Speed *t_(PR)

[0651] where C_(f) is the coefficient of friction between the vehicleand the road. Similarly, the stopping distance at a speed limit(D_(StopLimit)) may be given by:

D _(StopLimit)=([Speed Limit]²/(2*actual C _(f) * g))+Speed Limit *t_(PR)

[0652] The stopping distance at a safe speed (D_(StopSafe)) may be givenby

D _(StopSafe)=([Safe Speed]²/(2*actual C _(f) * g))+Safe Speed * t_(PR)

[0653] In certain embodiments, an assessment may include whether avehicle may have stopped before the accident at actual speed. Table 12includes comparisons of stopping distances to perception distances. Case20 in Table 12 refers to a situation in which the stopping distance atthe actual speed is less than the perception distance. In this case, itmay be likely that the vehicle may have come to a complete stop if thevehicle had braked with full force when the other vehicle was firstnoticed.

[0654] In another embodiment, an assessment may include whether avehicle may have stopped before the accident at the speed limit. Case 21refers to a situation in which the stopping distance at the speed limitis less than the perception distance. In this case, it may be likelythat the vehicle may have come to a complete stop and avoided theaccident.

[0655] In one embodiment, an assessment may include whether a vehiclemay have stopped before the accident at the safe speed. Case 22 refersto a situation in which the stopping distance at the safe speed is lessthan the perception distance. In this case, it may be likely that thevehicle may have come to a complete stop and avoided the accident. Case23 refers to a situation in which the stopping distance at the safespeed is greater than or equal to the perception distance. In this case,it may be likely that the vehicle's speed did not play a significantrole in the accident. TABLE 12 ASSESSMENT OF REACTING VEHICLE FactorCase Comparison Speed Shift (%) 20 Is [D_(StopActual)] < [PerceptionDistance] Actual 10 21 Is [D_(StopLimit)] < [Perception Distance] Limit8 22 Is [D_(StopSafe)] < [Perception Distance] Safe 5 23 Is[D_(StopSafe)] ≧ [Perception Distance] Safe —

[0656] As shown in FIGS. 75e and 75 g, vehicle B, the turning vehiclemay not clear a collision area in some embodiments of accident types 4and 5. Therefore, the time (t_(x)) for the reacting vehicle to traveldistance CD in FIG. 87 may not be useful for assessing whether areacting vehicle may avoid an accident. FIGS. 75e and 75 g correspond toembodiments of accident types 4 and 5, respectively, in which thecollision lane is the same as the target lane for vehicle B.

[0657]FIG. 98 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forassessing whether a straight vehicle (vehicle A) may avoid an accidentfor accident types illustrated in FIGS. 75e and 75 g. Assessments madein FIG. 98 are summarized in TABLE 13. The method may include estimating9801 the time for vehicle B to substantially complete a turn (t_(E)).Vehicle B is depicted at the completion of a turn by diagram 7533 inFIG. 75e or diagram 7539 in FIG. 75g. The distance traveled by vehicle Bduring time t_(E) may be from the perception point (point C in FIG. 87)to the intended end position of vehicle B estimated by the method shownin FIG. 77. The intended end position may represent the position ofvehicle B at the completion of a turn. t_(E) may be compared 9803 to theperception-reaction time (t_(PR)) of vehicle A. If t_(E) is less than orequal to t_(PR), then there is no time for vehicle A to brake to avoidcolliding with vehicle B. Assessments 9805 may be made of theopportunity of vehicle A to avoid the accident. Cases 24 and 25 in Table13 may correspond to assessments 9805. For cases 24 and 25, it may belikely that the vehicle's speed did not play a significant role in theaccident. TABLE 13 ASSESSMENT OF REACTING VEHICLE A FOR CASES IN WHICHVEHICLE B DOES NOT CLEAR THE COLLISION AREA Factor Case Speed ReactionShift (%) 24 Not applicable Braking 0 25 Not applicable No Braking 5 24bSafe Speed Braking 0 25b Safe Speed No Braking 5 26 Speed Limit Braking3 27 Speed Limit Not Braking 8 28 Safe Speed Braking 0 29 Safe Speed NoBraking 5

[0658] TABLE 14 ASSESSMENT OF REACTING VEHICLE B FOR CASES IN WHICHVEHICLE B DOES NOT CLEAR THE COLLISION AREA Factor Case Speed ReactionShift (%) 30 Actual Speed Braking 5 31 Actual Speed Not Braking 10 32Safe Speed Braking 0 33 Safe Speed Not Braking 5 34 Safe Speed — 0

[0659] Alternatively, if t_(E) greater than t_(PR), then the opportunityfor vehicle A to avoid the accident may be assessed for at least onespecified speed of vehicle A. A specified speed may include, but is notlimited to, the speed limit for vehicle A or the safe speed for vehicleA. In one embodiment, an assessment may be carried out using the speedlimit of vehicle A if the speed limit of vehicle A is less than theactual speed of vehicle A. In addition, an assessment may be carried outusing the safe speed of vehicle A if the safe speed of vehicle A is lessthan the speed limit and actual speed of vehicle A.

[0660] In certain embodiments, assessing the opportunity of vehicle A toavoid the accident may include estimating 9807 the position of vehicle Aafter traveling for time t_(E) at a specified speed. The position ofvehicle B after time t_(E) may be the intended end position estimated inFIG. 77. The positions of vehicle A and vehicle B may be compared 9809to determine whether the vehicles may be clear of one another. Theposition of the front of vehicle A may be compared to the position ofthe rear of vehicle B. For example, the position of the front of vehicleA may be the x coordinate of vehicleFP of vehicle A. Similarly, theposition of the rear of vehicle B may be the x coordinate of vehicleLPof vehicle B. In some embodiments, vehicle A and vehicle B may beconsidered to be clear and not to have collided if the x coordinate ofthe position of the front of vehicle A is less than the x coordinate ofthe position of the rear of vehicle B. In other embodiments, a buffermay be used to define when a collision may have occurred. For example,vehicle A and vehicle B may be considered to be clear and not to havecollided if the x coordinate of the position of the front of vehicle Aminus a buffer value is less than the x coordinate of the position ofthe rear of vehicle B. The buffer value may be, for example, a half avehicle length.

[0661] In one embodiment, if vehicle A and vehicle B are not clear andhave collided 9809, assessments may be performed 9811 regarding theopportunity for vehicle A to avoid the accident. For example, if thespecified speed is the safe speed of vehicle A, an assessment may bemade. If vehicle A was braking from accelerating or braking from aconstant rate then case 24 b may apply. If vehicle A was not brakingfrom accelerating or braking from a constant rate then case 25 b mayapply. It may be likely that vehicle A's speed did not play asignificant role in the accident. Alternatively, another specifiedspeed, lower than the previous specified speed, may be selected 9811 forassessment. The new assessment may begin at step 9807.

[0662] Furthermore, if it is determined that vehicle A and vehicle B areclear and have not collided, the velocity (V_(EB)) of vehicle B when itcompletes the turn may be estimated 9813. The velocity of vehicle A(v_(EA)) when vehicle B completes the turn may also be estimated 9813.v_(EA) and v_(EB) may then be compared 9815. If v_(EA) is less thanv_(EB), then assessments may be performed 9817. Cases 26 and 27 in Table13 may apply if the specified speed is the speed limit. Cases 28 and 29in Table 13 may apply if the specified speed is the safe speed. It maybe likely that vehicle A may avoid the accident if vehicle A wastraveling at the specified speed.

[0663] If v_(EA) is greater than v_(EB), vehicle A may become closer andcollide with vehicle B. The time spent (t_(SS)) by vehicle Baccelerating to a specified speed starting at the end of the turn maythen be estimated 9819. The specified speed may be, for example, thespeed limit of vehicle B or the safe speed of vehicle B. At decisionpoint 9821, it is determined whether t_(SS) is greater than 0. If t_(SS)is approximately zero, then vehicle B is already traveling approximatelyat its specified speed at the end of the turn. In this case, theposition of vehicle A and the position of vehicle B at the time vehicleA reaches the specified speed of vehicle B may be estimated 9823. Thepositions of vehicle A and vehicle B may then be compared 9825 todetermine whether the vehicles may be clear. The comparison may beperformed in a manner similar to that at step 9809.

[0664] In one embodiment, if it is determined at decision point 9825that vehicle A and vehicle B are clear, assessments may be performed9829 regarding the opportunity for vehicle A to avoid the accident.Cases 26 and 27 in Table 13 may apply if the specified speed is thespeed limit. Cases 28 and 29 in Table 13 may apply if the specifiedspeed is the safe speed. In general, for these cases, it may be likelythat vehicle A may avoid the accident if vehicle A was traveling at thespecified speed.

[0665] Furthermore, if vehicle A and vehicle B are not clear,assessments may be performed 9827 and/or another specified speed may beselected. For example, if the specified speed is the safe speed ofvehicle A, an assessment may be made. If vehicle A was braking fromaccelerating or braking from a constant rate then case 24 may apply. Ifvehicle A was not braking from accelerating or braking from a constantrate of speed then case 25 may apply. Alternatively, another specifiedspeed for vehicle A, lower than the previous specified speed, may beselected 9827 for assessment. The new assessment may begin at step 9807.

[0666] In one embodiment, if t_(SS) is greater than zero at decisionpoint 9821, the speed (v_(tSSA)) of vehicle A at the time that vehicle Breaches a specified speed may be estimated 9831. v_(tSSA) may then becompared 9833 to the specified speed of vehicle B (v_(SSB)) to determinewhether vehicle A and vehicle B may collide. If v_(tSSA) is greater thanthe specified speed for vehicle B, then it may be possible for vehicle Ato become closer and collide with vehicle B. An assessment may beperformed 9835 and/or another specified speed for vehicle A may beselected. Cases 25 and 26 may apply. It may be likely that vehicle A'sspeed did not play a significant role in the accident. Alternatively,another specified speed, lower than the previous specified speed, may beselected 9835 for an assessment. The new assessment may begin at step9807.

[0667] If v_(tSSA) is less than the specified speed for vehicle B atdecision point 9833, then an assessment may be performed 9837. It may beunlikely that vehicle A would collide with vehicle B. Cases 26 and 27 inTable 13 may apply if the specified speed is the speed limit. Cases 28and 29 in Table 13 may apply if the specified speed is the safe speed.It may be likely that vehicle A may avoid the accident if vehicle A wastraveling at the specified speed.

[0668]FIG. 99 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forassessing whether a turning vehicle (vehicle B) may avoid an accidentfor accident types illustrated in FIGS. 75e and 75 g. The method mayinclude estimating 9901 a time (t_(new)) for a vehicle A to travel aspecified distance from the perception point (point C in FIG. 87a). Thespecified distance may be selected such that vehicle A is beyond theposition of vehicle B at the end of the turn. The specified distance maybe, for example, three vehicle lengths past the perception point. Ifvehicle A is accelerating from a stop before the accident, then

t_(new)=specified distance/v_(C)

[0669] where v_(C) is the velocity of vehicle A at point C in FIG. 87a.If vehicle A is at a constant speed or slowing before the accident, then

t_(new)=specified distance/v₀

[0670] where v₀ is the initial or constant speed of vehicle A. Themethod may then include estimating 9903 a speed (v_(new)) of vehicle Bto avoid an accident with vehicle A. Such a speed may result in vehicleB at or near the end of its turn after vehicle A has passed. The speedmay be given by:

v_(new)=CD(from FIG. 87 a)/t_(new)

[0671] The method may further include comparing 9905 v_(new) with theactual speed of vehicle B. If v_(new) is greater than or equal to theactual speed of B, then an assessment of whether vehicle B may haveavoided the accident may be performed 9907. Cases 30 and 31 in Table 14may apply. It may be likely that vehicle B should have been able toavoid the accident at the speed it was traveling.

[0672] If v_(new) is less than the actual speed of B, then v_(new) maybe compared 9909 to the safe speed of B. If v_(new) is greater than orequal to the safe speed of B, then an assessment may be performed 9911.Cases 32 and 33 in Table 14 may apply. It may be likely that vehicle Bshould have been able to avoid the accident at the safe speed. Ifv_(new) is less than the safe speed of B, then case 34 in Table 14 mayapply 9913. It may be likely that vehicle B's speed did not play asignificant role in the accident.

[0673] In one embodiment, a total contribution to liability due to thespeed of a vehicle may include a combination of the raw speed factorshift and the opportunity to avoid factor shift. The opportunity toavoid (OTA) shift may be obtained from the method depicted in FIG. 95and Table 8, the method depicted in FIG. 97 and Table 12, or the methoddepicted in FIG. 98 and Tables 13 and 14. The raw speed shift may beobtained from the method depicted in FIG. 96 and Table 11. In someembodiments, the total speed factor shift may be given by:

Total Speed factor shift=OTA Shift+Raw speed shift

[0674] In other embodiments, the total speed factor shift may be limitedby the maximum shift shown in Table 11. For example, the total speedfactor shift may be given by the formula:

Total Speed factor shift=OTA Shift * [(Start %+(100−Start %)* %Excess]/100+Raw Speed Shift

[0675] % Excess may refer to S_(SafeExcess) or S_(LimitExcess). In oneembodiment, Start % may be about 20%.

[0676] In certain embodiments, a method may include providing a computersystem configured to access a memory. The memory may include atheoretical path of at least one vehicle in an accident. The memory mayalso include a collision area. The theoretical path may be displayed asa graphical image in a graphical user interface. The method may furtherinclude displaying a collision area as a graphical image in a graphicaluser interface. At least one vehicle may also be displayed as agraphical image in the graphical user interface.

[0677]FIG. 100 depicts images of an accident scene corresponding toaccident type 3 on a graphical user interface. The figure illustratestrajectory 10001 of the first vehicle point and trajectory 10003 of thelast vehicle point of a turning vehicle. A graphical image of theturning vehicle is shown at the start 10005 of the turn, just prior10007 to entering collision area 10013, just after exiting 10009collision area 10013, and at the completion 10011 of the turn. Agraphical image of the straight vehicle is also shown prior to entering10015 the intersection, just prior 10017 to entering collision area10013, and just after 10019 exiting collision area 10013.

[0678] As described herein, a user may provide claim data for one ormore claims to a computer system regarding a vehicle accident in agraphical user interface, for example, see FIGS. 42-45 and FIGS. 47-64.The claim data that is provided may be stored in a database associatedwith a method and system for estimating liability in an accident such as@Fault developed by Computer Sciences Corporation of El Segundo, Calif.A database associated with claim reporting software may also include atleast some of the claim data for the one or more claims.

[0679] It may be advantageous in an embodiment to copy claim data from adatabase associated with the claim reporting software to a databaseassociated with a method and system for estimating liability in anaccident. In one embodiment, a method may include accessing claim datafor one or more claims relating to a vehicle accident from a firstdatabase on a computer system. The first database may be associated withclaim reporting software. In some embodiments, claim data for the one ormore claims may be accessed periodically following a user-defined timeperiod. For example, the user-defined time period may be daily, weekly,monthly, and yearly. The accessed claim data may be stored on a seconddatabase on the computer system. In some embodiments, the seconddatabase may be associated with a method and system for estimatingliability in a vehicle accident. In an embodiment, a communicationssoftware program may access the claim data from the first database andstore the claim data on the second database.

[0680] In some embodiments, the method may further include accessingclaim data for one or more of the claims on the second database for useby the method and system for estimating liability in a vehicle accident.For example, a user of the method and system for estimating liabilitymay prompt the computer system to access claim data for one or more ofthe claims in the second database.

[0681]FIG. 101 is an illustration of a system for copying claim datafrom one database to another. Diagrams 5601, 5603, 5605, and 5607represent components of the system and method that interact with oneanother. Arrows 5612, 5614, and 5616 represent the flow of data betweencomponents. Communications Software Program 5601 may access claim datafor one or more claims from Database for Claims Reporting Software 5603as shown by arrow 5612. The Communications Software Program may beconfigured to access the claims data on a periodic basis, for example,nightly. The number of claims accessed may be at least one, however,hundreds, thousands, or more may be accessed. The claim data of the oneor more claims may be transferred, as shown by arrow 5612, from Database5603 by the Communications Software Program. In some embodiments,Communications Software Program 5601 may be configured to convert claimdata stored in the format of Database 5603 to the format of Database5605. The claim data may then stored, as shown by arrow 5614, onDatabase for System and Method of Liability Estimation 5605. User 5607may then have access to the claim data for use by the system and methodfor estimating liability in an accident, as shown by arrow 5616.

[0682] In other embodiments, claim data for a claim relating to avehicle accident may be requested. For example, a user of the method andsystem for estimating liability may prompt the computer system to accessclaim data of the claim. The claim data for the claim may be accessedfrom a first database if the claim data for the claim is not stored on asecond database. In an embodiment, the first database may be associatedwith claim reporting software and the second database may be associatedwith a method and system for estimating liability in a vehicle accident.The claim data for the claim accessed from the first database may bestored on the second database on the computer system. The method mayfurther include accessing the claim data for the claim on the seconddatabase for use by the method and system for estimating liability in avehicle accident.

[0683]FIG. 102 is another illustration of a system and method forcopying claim data from one database to another. Diagrams 10201, 10203,10205, and 10207 represent components of the system and method thatinteract with one another. Arrows 10210, 10214, 10216, and 10218represent the flow of information and data between components. User10207 may issue a request for claim data for a claim, as shown by arrow10210, to Communications Software Program 10201. Communications SoftwareProgram 10201 may access claims data for the claim from Database forClaims Reporting Software 10203 as shown by arrow 10214. The claim datafor the claim may be transferred, as shown by arrow 10214, from Database10203 by the Communications Software Program. The claim data may thenstored, as shown by arrow 10216, on Database 10205 for System and Methodof Liability Estimation 10205. User 10207 may then have access to theclaim, as shown by arrow 10218.

[0684] It may be useful or necessary to communicate claim informationrelating to liability determination performed by claims adjusters toother parties in a claims organization. For example, claim informationmay be sent for management review on a periodic basis. Alternatively,communication of claim information from a claims adjuster may becontingent upon specific conditions being met or satisfied. Generally,reporting such information periodically and identifying such conditionsmanually by a claims adjuster can be time consuming. In addition, suchmanual reporting may be inconsistent and unreliable. An alternative tomanual reporting of claim information may include a method ofautomatically preparing and sending pre-configured reports to managementpersonnel in a claims organization.

[0685] In one embodiment of a method of estimating liability, claiminformation required by a pre-configured claim report may be accessedfrom a database if a user-specified condition is met. FIG. 103 depicts aflow chart illustrating accessing of claim information at step 10301.During a liability estimation process, claim information relating to anaccident may be entered and assessments may be made based on the claiminformation. Management personnel may desire to review the claiminformation and assessments if they meet certain conditions. Forexample, such conditions may include settlement liability within aparticular range, settlement liability less than a particular value,settlement liability greater than a particular value, settlementliability with a particular magnitude of discrepancy with an assignedliability, assignment of an absolute liability value, assignment of aparticular accident type, assignment of a particular roadwayconfiguration, assignment of a particular liability, assignment of aparticular range of liability, and assignment of a particular liabilityfor a particular factor. An assigned liability may be obtained from amethod for estimating liability in a vehicle accident, as describedherein.

[0686] In some embodiments, the database may be associated with a methodfor estimating liability in a vehicle accident such as @Fault developedby Computer Sciences Corporation of El Segundo, Calif. Claim informationrequired by the pre-configured claim report may include one or more ofthe following: names of parties, adjuster identification, claim number,jurisdiction, accident details, liability assigned to parties, liabilityrange assigned to parties, and discrepancy between assigned liabilityand settlement liability. A pre-configured claim report may then becreated that includes the required claim information as shown at step10303 in FIG. 103. In an embodiment, the claim report may be sent to auser-specified location as indicated at step 10305. For example, theuser-specified location may include an electronic mailbox or a printer.The electronic mailbox or printer may be associated with managementpersonnel.

[0687] In some embodiments, accessing the required claim information maybe performed by a business intelligence tool. In addition, a businessintelligence tool may also create the pre-configured claim report. A“business intelligence tool” is a software program that coordinates theactions of gathering, processing and distributing decision-makinginformation. In one embodiment, the software program “BusinessObjects”developed by Business Objects of San Jose, Calif. may be used. Ingeneral, BusinessObjects is a tool that allows users to access, analyze,and share information stored in multiple data sources. Users may createreports and analyze data with BusinessObjects. Data access softwareprograms in BusinessObjects may be configured to access specific typesof claim information from a database. In an embodiment, the data accessprograms may be represented by icons on the BusinessObjects desktopinterface on the display screen of a personal computer. A pre-configuredreport may include one or more of the data access programs.

[0688]FIG. 104 represents a schematic illustration of a system forcreating a pre-configured claim report. Diagram 10401 may represent aBusiness Intelligence tool such as BusinessObjects for creating apre-configured claim report. Diagram 10403 may represent a databaseassociated with a system for estimating liability in a vehicle accident.A pre-configured accident report may be created by template 10405.Template 10405 may include data access programs 10407, 10409, and 10411,which are programmed to access specific types of claim information fromthe database. Arrows 10413 represent the access of the specific types ofclaim information from the database by the data access programs.

[0689]FIG. 105 is an illustration of a claim report generated due to auser-specified condition being met. The user-specified condition is adiscrepancy between an assigned liability and a settlement liabilitygreater than 20 percent. The title of Report 10501 is “Discrepancybetween Assigned Liability and Settlement Liability Greater than 20%.”Row 10503 identifies claim information included in the claim report. Row10505 includes the claim information for the claim that had thediscrepancy.

[0690] In another embodiment, claim information on a computer systemrequired by a pre-configured claim report for an accident may beaccessed from a database periodically following a user-specified timeperiod. The user-specified time period may be daily, weekly, monthly,and yearly. The claim report may include claims with one or morecharacteristics. Management personnel may desire to view reportsrelating to claims, for instance, that have been settled, settled withinthe user-specified time period, claims within a particular range ofsettlement value, claims with a particular assignment of liability, orclaims with the assignment of a particular range of liability. A claimreport may then be created and sent to a user-defined location. In analternative embodiment, a pre-configured claim report may be requestedby a user.

[0691]FIG. 106 is a schematic illustration of a portion of a claimreport generated on a daily basis. Report 10601 with the title “ClaimsSettled on Jan. 28, 2002” is a periodic report generated on a dailybasis. The report includes claim information on claims settled on Jan.28, 2002. Row 10603 identifies claim information included in the claimreport. Rows 10605 include the claim information for the claims thatwere settled.

[0692] In one embodiment, a method of estimating liability in anaccident may include recording vehicle data of a vehicle relating to theaccident in memory on a computer system. The computer system may belocated in the vehicle. For example, an airbag module may be configuredto record the vehicle data. Vehicle data of a vehicle may include thepre-impact speed, braking before the accident, engine speed before theaccident, and throttle position before the accident. Engine speed may bemeasured in revolutions per minute (RPM). “RPM” is the revolutions perminute at which the engine crankshaft of a vehicle turns whether avehicle is stationary or in motion. In addition, vehicle data mayinclude post-accident change in velocity of the vehicle. The effect ofthe vehicle data on the liability of a party in the accident may then beestimated.

[0693] In one embodiment, the recorded vehicle data may be stored in adata file on a computer system. Vehicle data may be stored if an eventsuch as an accident or sudden change in speed is detected by a sensor onthe vehicle. In an embodiment, the stored vehicle data may be in aformat that is not recognizable to general purpose computer softwareprograms. Therefore, the recorded vehicle data may be decoded to arecognizable format.

[0694] An embodiment may also include determining one or more propertiesfrom the vehicle data. The one or more properties may include, forexample, distance traveled before the accident, distance traveled afterbraking, acceleration, point of impact, and angle of impact. The effectof the one or more properties on the liability of a party in theaccident may also be estimated.

[0695] In an embodiment, the vehicle data and the one or more propertiesmay be used to assess the influence of factors on liability. Forexample, the vehicle data and such properties may be relevant to factorsrelated to a driver's actions: following too closely, driving at anunsafe speed, a sudden stop or swerve, driving with taillights or brakelights off, unsafe backing, failure to take evasive action, and animproper lane change.

[0696] In another embodiment, the method may include evaluating accuracyof information relating to the accident provided by one or more sources.The data may be compared to corresponding properties provided ininformation from the one or more sources.

[0697] One embodiment for estimating liability from vehicle data andproperties may include a first computer system and a second computersystem. Vehicle data may be recorded in memory and stored in a data fileon a first computer system. The vehicle data may then be retrieved fromthe first computer system with a second computer system.

[0698] The first computer system may be, for example, a vehicle's airbagsensing and diagnostic module. A second computer system may retrieve thevehicle data from the first computer system. After retrieval, the secondcomputer system may decode the data such that the decoded data may beaccessible to general purpose software programs. The method may furtherinclude estimating an effect of the data on the liability of a party. Insome embodiments, the data may be retrieved by a third computer system,such as a laptop or desktop computer. The effect of the data on theliability of a party may be estimated on the third computer system.

[0699]FIG. 107 is a flow chart illustrating a method of estimatingliability that uses vehicle data recorded on a computer system in avehicle. In step 10701, vehicle data may be recorded on a first computersystem. Vehicle data may be stored on the first computer system as shownin step 10703. The stored vehicle data may be retrieved in step 10705with a second computer system. At step 10707, vehicle data may bedecoded on the second computer system. In step 10709, an effect of thedata on the liability of a party may be determined. Liability may beestimated on a third computer system.

[0700]FIG. 108 illustrates a system for obtaining vehicle data forestimating the liability of a party in an accident. Arrows representtransfer of data between components of the system. Diagram 10801illustrates a vehicle that has an airbag module installed that isconfigured to record vehicle data. An “airbag module” refers to acomputer that controls airbag deployment. Since 1990, airbag modulesconfigured to record vehicle data were installed in selected GeneralMotors vehicles. An airbag module configured to record vehicle data maybe referred to as a “Sensing and Diagnostic Module” (SDM). The SDMcorresponds to the first computer system referred to in step 10701 inFIG. 107. The following data may be recorded by the SDM: brake status (5seconds before impact), change in velocity vs. time for frontal airbagdeployment event, engine speed (5 seconds before impact), maximum changein velocity for near-deployment event, throttle position (5 secondsbefore impact), time between near-deploy and deploy event (if within 5seconds), time from vehicle impact to airbag deployment, time fromvehicle impact to time of maximum change in velocity, and vehicle speed(5 seconds before impact).

[0701] The SDM may record two types of crash events. The first crashevent may be referred to as a “near deployment event.” A “neardeployment event” is an event severe enough to initiate a sensingalgorithm that initiates storage of vehicle data, but not severe enoughto deploy the airbag(s). Both pre-crash and crash data may be recordedduring a near deployment event. The SDM may store up to one neardeployment event. The data from a near deployment event may beoverwritten by an event with a greater SDM recorded velocity change.

[0702] The second type of SDM recorded crash event may be referred to asa “deployment event.” A “deployment event” may be an event severe enoughto initiate a sensing algorithm and to deploy the airbag(s). The SDM mayalso record both pre-crash and crash data during a deployment event. TheSDM may store up to two different deployment events if the events occurwithin five seconds of one another. The first deployment event, which isthe event that deploys the airbag, may be stored in a deployment file.The second deployment event may be stored in a near deployment file.Deployment events may not be overwritten or cleared from the SDM. Oncethe SDM has deployed the airbag, the SDM may be replaced.

[0703] Diagram 10803 in FIG. 108 illustrates an example of a module thatmay retrieve vehicle data recorded and stored by the SDM. Diagram 10803is an illustration of a Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) system manufacturedby Vetronix Corporation in Santa Barbara, Calif. The CDR includeshardware and software that retrieves pre- and post-crash data from theairbag module of a vehicle. The CDR may correspond to the secondcomputer system referred to in step 10705 in FIG. 107. The CDR decodesportions of the data recorded by the SDM using proprietary algorithms.The Windows® based CDR software may depict the decoded data in graphsand tables. The pre-crash vehicle data that the CDR may provide includesbrake status (on/off) 5 seconds before impact, vehicle speed 5 secondsbefore impact, engine speed 5 seconds before impact, and throttleposition 5 seconds before impact. The post-crash data that the CDRprovides includes change in velocity vs. time for a frontal airbagdeployment event. The decoded vehicle data may be retrieved by laptop10805 or desktop computer 10807 for further analysis. Laptop computer10805 and Desktop computer 10807 in FIG. 108 may include software foranalyzing data obtained from the CDR.

[0704]FIG. 109 illustrates vehicle data from the CDR. Column 10901labeled “Seconds Before AE” is the time in seconds before the crashalgorithm was enabled to store vehicle data. “AE” refers to “algorithmenabled.” Since the algorithm is enabled by a collision, column 10901represents the number of seconds before a crash. Column 10903 labeled“Vehicle Speed (MPH)” includes the vehicle speed in miles per hour.Column 10905 labeled “Engine Speed (RPM)” includes the speed of theengine in revolutions per minute. Column 10907 labeled “ThrottlePosition (percent)” includes the throttle open percent. “100”corresponds to a completely open throttle. Column 10909 labeled “BrakeSwitch Circuit Status” indicates whether or not the brakes are appliedin the vehicle. The Brake Switch Circuit status is “OFF” when the brakesare not applied and “ON” when the brakes are applied.

[0705]FIG. 110 is graphical output of the CDR corresponding to the datadepicted in FIG. 109. The abscissa labeled “Approximate Time BeforeAlgorithm Enable (seconds)” corresponds to column 10901 in FIG. 109.Curve 11001 represents the pre-impact vehicle speed in miles per hourand corresponds to column 10903 in FIG. 109. Curve 11003 represents theengine speed in RPM/100 and corresponds to column 10905 in FIG. 109.Curve 11005 represents the throttle position and corresponds to column10907 in FIG. 109. Curve 11007 represents the brake switch circuitstatus and corresponds to column 10909 in FIG. 109.

[0706]FIG. 111 is graphical output from the CDR for the post-accidentdecrease in velocity versus time. Curve 11100 shows that the velocity ofthe vehicle decreases by almost 30 miles per hour in the first 150milliseconds after the crash.

[0707] Assessment of vehicle accident claims may include determiningdamages due to injuries to vehicle occupants. In one embodiment, amethod of assessing a claim in a vehicle accident on a computer systemmay include estimating injuries to one or more vehicle occupants in avehicle accident. The injuries to the one or more vehicle occupants maybe estimated from one or more variables. The variables used to estimatethe injuries may include one or more of the following: impact forces onvehicles in the accident, weight of the vehicles, positions of occupantsin the vehicles, and pre-impact speed of the vehicles in the accident.The impact forces may be estimated from the pre-impact speed and theweight of the vehicles in the accident. In one embodiment, estimatingthe injuries may include determining the type and severity of injuries.Injuries may include damage to soft tissue and bones.

[0708] In an embodiment, the pre-impact speed of the vehicles in theaccident may be estimated from crush damage to the vehicles.Alternatively, the pre-impact speed of one or more of the vehicles inthe accident is obtained from data recorded on the one or more vehicles.The data may be recorded, for example, with an airbag diagnostic module.

[0709] In one embodiment, WrExpert software developed by Injury SciencesLLC of San Antonio, Tex. may be used to estimate injuries in a vehicleaccident. For example, WrExpert may determine the types of injuries in avehicle accident from impact forces on the vehicles, weight of thevehicles, positions of occupants in the vehicles, and pre-impact speedof the vehicles in the accident. The pre-impact speed may be determinedby WrExpert from crush damage of the vehicles.

[0710] The method for assessing a claim may further include estimatingdamages due to injuries to one or more injured vehicle occupants. Thedamages due to injuries may depend upon the type and severity of aninjury. The damages due to injuries may include compensation for medicaltreatment, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Damages due to injuriesmay be estimated with a software program called COLOSSUS developed byComputer Sciences Corporation of El Segundo, Calif. COLOSSUS is acomprehensive knowledge-based system software product used by theinsurance industry. COLOSSUS assists the human decision-making processin assessing bodily injury claims. Its design includes insurance andmedical expertise. An adjuster is guided through injury evaluationconsultations with a series of detailed questions relating to a claim.COLOSSUS bases conclusions upon the severity of actual injuries andprovides claims professionals with a valuation range for each claim. Itmay evaluate more than 600 injuries, for example, a broken arm, pinchednerve, strained back, bruised ribs, and torn muscles.

[0711] The method for assessing a claim may further include estimatingthe liability of the parties in the accident, as described herein. Therelative fault of the parties in the accident may be determined.Adjusted damages due to injuries may be determined from the estimateddamages due to injuries and the liability of the parties. For example,the adjusted damages due to injuries of a vehicle occupant that was in agiven party's vehicle may be determined by reducing the estimateddamages due to injuries of the vehicle occupant by the party'sliability.

[0712] In one embodiment, a method of estimating liability for anaccident may include estimating pre-impact speeds of one or morevehicles in an accident from the crush damage of the one or morevehicles. WrExpert software may be used to estimate the impact speedfrom crush damage of a vehicle. The effect of the pre-impact speeds ofthe vehicles on the liability of parties in the accident may then beestimated.

[0713]FIG. 112 is an illustration of one embodiment of assessing aclaim. Diagram 11200 represents a software application such as WrExpert,as described above. The steps enclosed by diagram 11200 may be performedby WrExpert. At step 11201 the pre-impact speeds of vehicles in theaccident may be estimated. The impact forces may then be estimated atstep 11203. At step 11205, the injuries to one or more vehicle occupantsmay be estimated from the impact forces. The method continues to step11209 where damages due to injuries of the one or more vehicle occupantsmay be estimated. Step 11209 may be performed by a software program suchas COLOSSUS. The liability of the parties in the accident may beestimated at step 11211. Finally, the adjusted damages due to injuriesmay be determined from the estimated damages due to injuries and theliability of the parties at step 11213.

[0714] In a variation of the method illustrated in FIG. 112, thepre-impact speed of one or more of the vehicles in the accident may bedetermined from recorded crash data from an SDM on one or more of thevehicles. The impact forces may then be estimated at step 11203 from therecorded pre-impact speeds of one or more of the vehicles. The methodmay continue as described above. The results of the variation may becompared to the results from the method described above that usedpre-impact speed estimated from crush damage.

[0715] Further modifications and alternative embodiments of variousaspects of the invention may be apparent to those skilled in the art inview of this description. Accordingly, this description is to beconstrued as illustrative only and is for the purpose of teaching thoseskilled in the art the general manner of carrying out the invention. Itis to be understood that the forms of the invention shown and describedherein are to be taken as the presently preferred embodiments. Elementsand materials may be substituted for those illustrated and describedherein, parts and processes may be reversed, and certain features of theinvention may be utilized independently, all as would be apparent to oneskilled in the art after having the benefit of this description of theinvention. Changes may be made in the elements described herein withoutdeparting from the spirit and scope of the invention as described in thefollowing claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of estimating liability for an accidentusing a computer system, comprising: generating one or more questionsrelating to an accident; providing one or more sets of answerscorresponding to the one or more questions, wherein a set comprisesanswers to a question obtained from one or more sources; and estimatingthe effect of at least one factor on liability using at least oneanswer.
 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising storing a status ofa question in memory on the computer system.
 3. The method of claim 2,wherein the status comprises unanswered for a source.
 4. The method ofclaim 2, wherein the status comprises unknown answer for a source. 5.The method of claim 2, wherein the status comprises resolved.
 6. Themethod of claim 1, further comprising inhibiting a user from providingfurther input if the user fails to provide an answer to a question. 7.The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more questions relate totraffic control.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or morequestions relate to right of way.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein theone or more questions relate to environment.
 10. The method of claim 1,wherein the one or more questions relate to roadway details.
 11. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the one or more questions relate to driveraction.
 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more questionsrelate to driver condition.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the oneor more questions relate to vehicle equipment.
 14. The method of claim1, wherein the one or more sources comprise an insured.
 15. The methodof claim 1, wherein the one or more sources comprise a claimant.
 16. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the one or more sources comprise an insuranceadjuster.
 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sourcescomprise a police report.
 18. The method of claim 1, wherein the one ormore sources comprise a weather report.
 19. The method of claim 1,wherein the one or more sources comprise an accident reconstructionreport.
 20. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sourcescomprise physical evidence.
 21. A system configured to estimateliability, comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and asystem memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory isconfigured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU,and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a methodfor estimating liability, the method comprising: generating one or morequestions relating to an accident; providing one or more sets of answerscorresponding to the one or more questions, wherein a set comprisesanswers to a question obtained from one or more sources; and estimatingthe effect of at least one factor on liability using at least oneanswer.
 22. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, whereinthe program instructions are computer-executable to implement a methodfor estimating liability for an accident, the method comprising:generating one or more questions relating to an accident; providing oneor more sets of answers corresponding to the one or more questions,wherein a set comprises answers to a question obtained from one or moresources; and estimating the effect of at least one factor on liabilityusing at least one answer.
 23. A method of estimating liability for anaccident using a computer system, comprising: generating a question onone or more topics relating to the accident; providing a set of answerscorresponding to the question to the computer system, wherein the set ofanswers comprises one or more answers obtained from one or more sources;selecting an answer from the set of answers for use in estimatingliability in the accident; and estimating the effect of a factor onliability using the selected answer.
 24. The method of claim 23, whereinselecting an answer from the set of answers for use in estimatingliability in the accident comprises: identifying inconsistencies in theanswers obtained from two or more sources; and selecting one of theanswers obtained from the two or more sources.
 25. The method of claim23, wherein the one or more topics comprise traffic control.
 26. Themethod of claim 23, wherein the one or more topics comprise right ofway.
 27. The method of claim 23, wherein the one or more topics compriseenvironment.
 28. The method of claim 23, wherein the one or more topicscomprise roadway details.
 29. The method of claim 23, wherein the one ormore topics comprise driver action.
 30. A system configured to estimateliability, comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and asystem memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory isconfigured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU,and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a methodfor estimating liability, the method comprising: generating a questionon one or more topics relating to the accident; providing a set ofanswers corresponding to the question to the computer system, whereinthe set of answers comprises one or more answers obtained from one ormore sources; selecting an answer from the set of answers for use inestimating liability in the accident; and estimating the effect of afactor on liability using the selected answer.
 31. A carrier mediumcomprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions arecomputer-executable to implement a method for estimating liability foran accident, the method comprising: generating a question on one or moretopics relating to the accident; providing a set of answerscorresponding to the question to the computer system, wherein the set ofanswers comprises one or more answers obtained from one or more sources;selecting an answer from the set of answers for use in estimatingliability in the accident; and estimating the effect of a factor onliability using the selected answer.
 32. A method, comprising:displaying a first screen on a computer system for entering answers to aquestion relating to an accident from two or more sources; entering twoor more answers from the two or more sources on the first screen;displaying a second screen for selecting an answer from the two or moreanswers for use in estimating liability; and allowing the user to selectan answer for use in estimating the effect of a factor on liability onthe second screen.
 33. The method of claim 32, further comprisingidentifying inconsistencies in the answers from the two or more sourceson the second screen.
 34. A system configured to estimate liability,comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memorycoupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store oneor more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein thecomputer programs are executable to implement a method comprising:displaying a first screen on a computer system for entering answers to aquestion relating to an accident from two or more sources; entering twoor more answers from the two or more sources on the first screen;displaying a second screen for selecting an answer from the two or moreanswers for use in estimating liability; and allowing the user to selectan answer for use in estimating the effect of a factor on liability onthe second screen.
 35. A carrier medium comprising program instructions,wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement amethod, the method comprising: displaying a first screen on a computersystem for entering answers to a question relating to an accident fromtwo or more sources; entering two or more answers from the two or moresources on the first screen; displaying a second screen for selecting ananswer from the two or more answers for use in estimating liability; andallowing the user to select an answer for use in estimating the effectof a factor on liability on the second screen.
 36. A method ofestimating liability for an accident using a computer system,comprising: generating a question on one or more topics relating to theaccident, wherein the question is associated with one or more answers,wherein at least one answer is associated with a set of additionalquestions; selecting an answer associated with a set of additionalquestions; and generating a set of additional questions associated withthe selected answer for use in estimating liability for the accident.37. The method of claim 36, wherein at least one additional question inthe set of additional questions is associated with a set of additionalanswers.
 38. The method of claim 38, wherein at least on additionalanswer is associated with an estimate of an effect on liability.
 39. Themethod of claim 38, further comprising using at least one additionalanswer to estimate an effect on liability.
 40. The method of claim 36,wherein the set of additional questions is associated with a source ofthe selected answer.
 41. The method of claim 36, further comprisingselecting a set of answers to the set of additional questions.
 42. Themethod of claim 36, further comprising using at least one answer toestimate the effect of a factor on liability in the accident.
 43. Themethod of claim 36, wherein at least on answer is associated with anestimate of an effect on liability.
 44. A system configured to estimateliability, comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and asystem memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory isconfigured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU,and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a methodfor estimating liability, the method comprising: generating a questionon one or more topics relating to the accident, wherein the question isassociated with one or more answers, wherein at least one answer isassociated with a set of additional questions; selecting an answerassociated with a set of additional questions; and generating a set ofadditional questions associated with the selected answer.
 45. A carriermedium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructionsare computer-executable to implement a method for estimating liabilityfor an accident, the method comprising: generating a question on one ormore topics relating to the accident, wherein the question is associatedwith one or more answers, wherein at least one answer is associated witha set of additional questions; selecting an answer associated with a setof additional questions; and generating a set of additional questionsassociated with the selected answer.
 46. A method of estimatingliability for a vehicle accident using a computer system, comprising:estimating a theoretical path of a reference vehicle; estimating atheoretical path of a reacting vehicle, wherein the reacting vehiclereacts to a danger of an accident with the reference vehicle; assessingthe opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident; andestimating a contribution to liability to the reacting vehicle based onthe opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident.
 47. Themethod of claim 46, wherein at least one vehicle is turning, and whereinthe theoretical path of the turning vehicle comprises an ellipse. 48.The method of claim 46, wherein a theoretical path of the referencevehicle comprises a trajectory of at least one point on the referencevehicle.
 49. The method of claim 46, further comprising providing one ormore roadway characteristics to the computer system.
 50. The method ofclaim 46, further comprising providing one or more driver actioncharacteristics to the computer system.
 51. The method of claim 46,wherein estimating a theoretical path of a reference vehicle comprisesestimating a starting point and an intended end point of the theoreticalpath of the reference vehicle.
 52. The method of claim 46, wherein atheoretical path of a reference vehicle is estimated using one or moreroadway characteristics.
 53. The method of claim 46, further comprisingestimating coordinates of a collision area, wherein the collision areacomprises a location where the reference vehicle and reacting vehicleare likely to occupy at impact.
 54. The method of claim 46, furthercomprising estimating a perception point on the theoretical path of thereference vehicle, wherein the perception point is a location on thetheoretical path of the reference vehicle when a reacting vehicle shouldfirst notice a danger of collision with the first vehicle.
 55. Themethod of claim 46, further comprising estimating a time for a collisionpoint on the reference vehicle to travel from a perception point to acollision area using one or more driver action characteristics.
 56. Themethod of claim 46, further comprising estimating a location of thereacting vehicle using a perception point of the reacting vehicle andone or more driver action characteristics.
 57. The method of claim 46,further comprising estimating a time for the reference vehicle to cleara collision area using one or more driver action characteristics. 58.The method of claim 46, further comprising estimating a time for thereacting vehicle to reach a collision area after the reference vehicleclears the collision area using one or more driver actioncharacteristics.
 59. The method of claim 46, wherein assessing theopportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident comprisescomparing a speed to avoid the accident to an actual speed of thereacting vehicle.
 60. The method of claim 46, wherein assessing theopportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident comprisescomparing a speed to avoid the accident to a safe speed of the reactingvehicle.
 61. The method of claim 46, wherein assessing the opportunityof the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident comprises comparing aspeed to avoid the accident to a speed limit of the reacting vehicle.62. A system configured to estimate liability, comprising: a CPU; a datamemory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to the CPU,wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computerprograms executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs areexecutable to implement a method for estimating liability, for a vehicleaccident, the method comprising: estimating a theoretical path of areference vehicle; estimating a theoretical path of a reacting vehicle,wherein the reacting vehicle reacts to a danger of an accident with thereference vehicle; assessing the opportunity of the reacting vehicle toavoid the accident; and estimating a contribution to liability to thereacting vehicle based on the opportunity of the reacting vehicle toavoid the accident.
 63. A carrier medium comprising programinstructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executableto implement a method for estimating liability for a vehicle accident,the method comprising: estimating a theoretical path of a referencevehicle; estimating a theoretical path of a reacting vehicle, whereinthe reacting vehicle reacts to a danger of an accident with thereference vehicle; assessing the opportunity of the reacting vehicle toavoid the accident; and estimating a contribution to liability to thereacting vehicle based on the opportunity of the reacting vehicle toavoid the accident.
 64. A method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident using a computer system, comprising: selecting a specifiedspeed of a vehicle involved in an accident; assessing whether thevehicle had an opportunity to avoid the accident at the specified speed;and estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoidthe accident.
 65. The method of claim 64, wherein the vehicle had theopportunity to avoid the accident by stopping before the accident. 66.The method of claim 64, wherein the vehicle had the opportunity to avoidthe accident by delaying enough at the specified speed of the vehicle.67. The method of claim 64, wherein the vehicle had the opportunity toavoid the accident by maintaining the specified speed of the vehicle.68. The method of claim 64, wherein the vehicle attempted to avoid theaccident by braking.
 69. The method of claim 64, wherein the effect onliability comprises a factor comprising a contribution to liabilitybased on the specified speed of the vehicle.
 70. The method of claim 64,wherein the effect on liability comprises a factor comprising acontribution based on whether the vehicle had the opportunity to stop,delay, or maintain the specified speed to avoid the accident.
 71. Themethod of claim 64, wherein the effect on liability comprises a factorcomprising a contribution based on braking to avoid the accident.
 72. Asystem configured to estimate liability, comprising: a CPU; a datamemory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to the CPU,wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computerprograms executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs areexecutable to implement a method for estimating liability, for a vehicleaccident, the method comprising: selecting a specified speed of avehicle involved in an accident; assessing whether the vehicle had anopportunity to avoid the accident at the specified speed; and estimatingan effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident.73. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, wherein theprogram instructions are computer-executable to implement a method forestimating liability for a vehicle accident, the method comprising:selecting a specified speed of a vehicle involved in an accident;assessing whether the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the accidentat the specified speed; and estimating an effect on liability based onthe opportunity to avoid the accident.
 74. A method of estimatingliability in a vehicle accident using a computer system, comprising:estimating a speed for avoiding of a vehicle, wherein the speed foravoiding comprises an approximate speed that allows the vehicle anopportunity to avoid the accident; providing a specified speed of thevehicle involved in an accident; comparing the speed for avoiding to thespecified speed; assessing an opportunity to avoid the accident based onthe comparison; and estimating an effect on liability based on theopportunity to avoid the accident.
 75. The method of claim 74, whereinthe specified speed comprises an actual speed of the vehicle.
 76. Themethod of claim 74, wherein the specified speed comprises a speed limitof the vehicle.
 77. The method of claim 74, wherein the specified speedcomprises a safe speed of the vehicle.
 78. The method of claim 74,wherein the speed for avoiding comprises an approximate maximum speed ofthe vehicle, such that the vehicle avoids the accident by stoppingbefore the accident.
 79. The method of claim 74, wherein the speed foravoiding comprises an approximate maximum speed to avoid an accident bybraking without stopping.
 80. The method of claim 74, wherein the speedfor avoiding comprises an approximate maximum speed to avoid an accidentby maintaining the speed for avoiding.
 81. The method of claim 74,further comprising estimating an actual speed of a vehicle involved inan accident.
 82. A system configured to estimate liability, comprising:a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled tothe CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or morecomputer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computerprograms are executable to implement a method for estimating liability,for a vehicle accident, the method comprising: estimating a speed foravoiding of a vehicle, wherein the speed for avoiding comprises anapproximate speed that allows the vehicle an opportunity to avoid theaccident; providing a specified speed of the vehicle involved in anaccident; comparing the speed for avoiding to the specified speed;assessing an opportunity to avoid the accident based on the comparison;and estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoidthe accident.
 83. A carrier medium comprising program instructions,wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement amethod for estimating liability for a vehicle accident, the methodcomprising: estimating a speed for avoiding of a vehicle, wherein thespeed for avoiding comprises an approximate speed that allows thevehicle an opportunity to avoid the accident; providing a specifiedspeed of the vehicle involved in an accident; comparing the speed foravoiding to the specified speed; assessing an opportunity to avoid theaccident based on the comparison; and estimating an effect on liabilitybased on the opportunity to avoid the accident.
 84. A method ofestimating liability in a vehicle accident using a computer system,comprising: estimating a theoretical path of at least one point on areference vehicle; estimating a theoretical path of at least one pointon a reacting vehicle, wherein the reacting vehicle reacts to the dangerof an accident with the reference vehicle; assessing the opportunity ofthe reacting vehicle to avoid the accident using the theoretical path ofat least one point; and estimating an effect on liability for thereacting vehicle based on the opportunity of the reacting vehicle toavoid the accident.
 85. The method of claim 84, wherein at least onepoint on the reference vehicle comprises a collision point.
 86. Themethod of claim 84, wherein at least one point on the reacting vehiclecomprises a collision point on a reacting vehicle.
 87. The method ofclaim 84, wherein at least one point comprises a first point of areference vehicle to enter a collision area.
 88. The method of claim 84,wherein at least one point on the reacting vehicle comprises a firstpoint of the reacting vehicle to enter a collision area.
 89. The methodof claim 84, wherein at least one point on the reference vehiclecomprises a last point of the reference vehicle to exit a collisionarea.
 90. The method of claim 84, wherein at least one point on thereacting vehicle comprises a last point of the reacting vehicle to exita collision area.
 91. A system configured to estimate liability,comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memorycoupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store oneor more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein thecomputer programs are executable to implement a method for estimatingliability, for a vehicle accident, the method comprising: estimating atheoretical path of at least one point on a reference vehicle;estimating a theoretical path of at least one point on a reactingvehicle, wherein the reacting vehicle reacts to the danger of anaccident with the reference vehicle; assessing the opportunity of thereacting vehicle to avoid the accident using the theoretical path of atleast one point; and estimating an effect on liability for the reactingvehicle based on the opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid theaccident.
 92. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, whereinthe program instructions are computer-executable to implement a methodfor estimating liability for a vehicle accident, the method comprising:estimating a theoretical path of at least one point on a referencevehicle; estimating a theoretical path of at least one point on areacting vehicle, wherein the reacting vehicle reacts to the danger ofan accident with the reference vehicle; assessing the opportunity of thereacting vehicle to avoid the accident using the theoretical path of atleast one point; and estimating an effect on liability for the reactingvehicle based on the opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid theaccident.
 93. A method, comprising: providing a computer systemconfigured to access a memory, wherein the memory comprises atheoretical path of at least one vehicle in an accident, and wherein thememory comprises a collision area, wherein the collision area comprisesa location where a reference vehicle and a reacting vehicle are likelyto occupy at impact; displaying the collision area as a graphical imagein a graphical user interface; displaying at least one vehicle as agraphical image in a graphical user interface; and displaying thetheoretical path as a graphical image in a graphical user interface. 94.The method of claim 93, wherein the theoretical path comprises anellipse.
 95. The method of claim 93, wherein at least one vehiclecomprises a turning vehicle.
 96. The method of claim 93, wherein atleast one vehicle comprises a straight traveling vehicle.
 97. The methodof claim 93, further comprising using the graphical images to assess theopportunity of at least one vehicle to avoid the accident
 98. The methodof claim 97, further comprising using the graphical images to assess acontribution to liability to at least one vehicle based on theopportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident.
 99. A systemconfigured to estimate liability, comprising: a CPU; a data memorycoupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein thesystem memory is configured to store one or more computer programsexecutable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executableto implement a method comprising: providing a computer system configuredto access a memory, wherein the memory comprises a theoretical path ofat least one vehicle in an accident, and wherein the memory comprises acollision area, wherein the collision area comprises a location where areference vehicle and a reacting vehicle are likely to occupy at impact;displaying the collision area as a graphical image in a graphical userinterface; displaying at least one vehicle as a graphical image in agraphical user interface; and displaying the theoretical path as agraphical image in a graphical user interface.
 100. A carrier mediumcomprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions arecomputer-executable to implement a method comprising: providing acomputer system configured to access a memory, wherein the memorycomprises a theoretical path of at least one vehicle in an accident, andwherein the memory comprises a collision area, wherein the collisionarea comprises a location where a reference vehicle and a reactingvehicle are likely to occupy at impact; displaying the collision area asa graphical image in a graphical user interface; displaying at least onevehicle as a graphical image in a graphical user interface; anddisplaying the theoretical path as a graphical image in a graphical userinterface.
 101. A method of assessing liability for a vehicle accidentusing a computer system, comprising: estimating coordinates of acollision area comprising a collision point, and wherein the collisionarea comprises a location where a reference vehicle and a reactingvehicle are likely to occupy at impact; estimating a time for thereference vehicle to clear the collision area; estimating a time for thereacting vehicle to reach the collision area, such that the reactingvehicle avoids the accident; assessing the opportunity of the reactingvehicle to avoid the accident using the estimated time for the reactingvehicle to reach the collision area; and estimating a contribution toliability to the reacting vehicle based on the opportunity of thereacting vehicle to avoid the accident.
 102. The method of claim 101,wherein the coordinates of the collision area are estimated fromtheoretical paths of the reference vehicle and the reacting vehicle.103. A system configured to estimate liability, comprising: a CPU; adata memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to the CPU,wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computerprograms executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs areexecutable to implement a method for estimating liability, for a vehicleaccident, the method comprising: estimating coordinates of a collisionarea comprising a collision point, and wherein the collision areacomprises a location where a reference vehicle and a reacting vehicleare likely to occupy at impact; estimating a time for the referencevehicle to clear the collision area; estimating a time for the reactingvehicle to reach the collision area, such that the reacting vehicleavoids the accident; assessing the opportunity of the reacting vehicleto avoid the accident using the estimated time for the reacting vehicleto reach the collision area; and estimating a contribution to liabilityto the reacting vehicle based on the opportunity of the reacting vehicleto avoid the accident.
 104. A carrier medium comprising programinstructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executableto implement a method for estimating liability for a vehicle accident,the method comprising: estimating coordinates of a collision areacomprising a collision point, and wherein the collision area comprises alocation where a reference vehicle and a reacting vehicle are likely tooccupy at impact; estimating a time for the reference vehicle to clearthe collision area; estimating a time for the reacting vehicle to reachthe collision area, such that the reacting vehicle avoids the accident;assessing the opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accidentusing the estimated time for the reacting vehicle to reach the collisionarea; and estimating a contribution to liability to the reacting vehiclebased on the opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident.105. A method of estimating liability for a vehicle accident using acomputer system, comprising: estimating a theoretical path of a straighttraveling vehicle; estimating a theoretical path of a turning vehicle,wherein the turning vehicle is in the same lane at the completion of aturn as the straight traveling vehicle; assessing the opportunity of atleast one vehicle traveling at a specified speed to avoid the accident;and estimating a contribution to liability to at least one vehicle basedon the opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident.
 106. The methodof claim 105, wherein the specified speed comprises an actual speed.107. The method of claim 105, wherein the specified speed comprises asafe speed.
 108. The method of claim 105, wherein the specified speedcomprises a speed limit.
 109. The method of claim 105, furthercomprising determining whether the straight traveling vehicle collideswith the turning vehicle after completion of the turn.
 110. The methodof claim 105, further comprising: estimating a time for the turningvehicle to substantially complete a turn; estimate the position of thestraight traveling vehicle at the time the turning vehicle substantiallycompletes the turn; and comparing the position of the turning vehiclewith the straight traveling vehicle.
 111. The method of claim 105,further comprising: estimating the speed of the straight travelingvehicle at the completion of the turn; estimating the speed of theturning vehicle at the completion of the turn; and comparing the speedof the straight traveling vehicle with the speed of the turning vehicle.112. A system configured to estimate liability, comprising: a CPU; adata memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to the CPU,wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computerprograms executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs areexecutable to implement a method for estimating liability, for a vehicleaccident, the method comprising: estimating a theoretical path of astraight traveling vehicle; estimating a theoretical path of a turningvehicle, wherein the turning vehicle is in the same lane at thecompletion of a turn as the straight traveling vehicle; assessing theopportunity of at least one vehicle traveling at a specified speed toavoid the accident; and estimating a contribution to liability to atleast one vehicle based on the opportunity of the vehicle to avoid theaccident.
 113. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, whereinthe program instructions are computer-executable to implement a methodfor estimating liability for a vehicle accident, the method comprising:estimating a theoretical path of a straight traveling vehicle;estimating a theoretical path of a turning vehicle, wherein the turningvehicle is in the same lane at the completion of a turn as the straighttraveling vehicle; assessing the opportunity of at least one vehicletraveling at a specified speed to avoid the accident; and estimating acontribution to liability to at least one vehicle based on theopportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident.
 114. A method ofestimating liability for a vehicle accident using a computer system,comprising: estimating an actual speed of a vehicle involved in anaccident; providing at least one specified speed of a vehicle involvedin the accident; comparing the actual speed to at least one specifiedspeed; and estimating an effect on liability based on the comparison.115. The method of claim 114, wherein a specified speed comprises aspeed limit of the vehicle involved in the accident.
 116. The method ofclaim 114, wherein a specified speed comprises a safe speed of thevehicle involved in the accident.
 117. The method of claim 114, whereinan affect on liability comprises a contribution to liability associatedwith at least one range of percent excess of an actual speed over thespecified speed.
 118. A system configured to estimate liability,comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memorycoupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store oneor more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein thecomputer programs are executable to implement a method for estimatingliability, for a vehicle accident, the method comprising: estimating anactual speed of a vehicle involved in an accident; providing at leastone specified speed of a vehicle involved in the accident; comparing theactual speed to at least one specified speed; and estimating an effecton liability based on the comparison.
 119. A carrier medium comprisingprogram instructions, wherein the program instructions arecomputer-executable to implement a method for estimating liability for avehicle accident, the method comprising: estimating an actual speed of avehicle involved in an accident; providing at least one specified speedof a vehicle involved in the accident; comparing the actual speed to atleast one specified speed; and estimating an effect on liability basedon the comparison.
 120. A method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident using a computer system, comprising: estimating at least onestopping distance of a vehicle, wherein a stopping distance comprises anapproximate distance for the vehicle traveling at a specified speed tostop to avoid the accident; estimating a perception distance, wherein aperception distance comprises an approximate distance from the accidentat which the vehicle sensed danger of an accident; assessing anopportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident using the perceptiondistance; and estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunityto avoid the accident.
 121. The method of claim 120, wherein thespecified speed comprises an actual speed.
 122. The method of claim 120,wherein the specified speed comprises a speed limit.
 123. The method ofclaim 120, wherein the specified speed comprises a safe speed.
 124. Asystem configured to estimate liability, comprising: a CPU; a datamemory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to the CPU,wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computerprograms executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs areexecutable to implement a method for estimating liability, for a vehicleaccident, the method comprising: estimating at least one stoppingdistance of a vehicle, wherein a stopping distance comprises anapproximate distance for the vehicle traveling at a specified speed tostop to avoid the accident; estimating a perception distance, wherein aperception distance comprises an approximate distance from the accidentat which the vehicle sensed danger of an accident; assessing anopportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident using the perceptiondistance; and estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunityto avoid the accident.
 125. A carrier medium comprising programinstructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executableto implement a method for estimating liability for a vehicle accident,the method comprising: estimating at least one stopping distance of avehicle, wherein a stopping distance comprises an approximate distancefor the vehicle traveling at a specified speed to stop to avoid theaccident; estimating a perception distance, wherein a perceptiondistance comprises an approximate distance from the accident at whichthe vehicle sensed danger of an accident; assessing an opportunity ofthe vehicle to avoid the accident using the perception distance; andestimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid theaccident.
 126. A method, comprising: accessing claim data for one ormore claims relating to a vehicle accident from a first database on acomputer system; storing the claim data on a second database on thecomputer system, wherein the second database is associated with a methodand system for estimating liability in the vehicle accident; andaccessing the claim data for one or more of the claims on the seconddatabase for use by the method and system for estimating liability inthe vehicle accident.
 127. The method of claim 126, further comprisingestimating liability in the vehicle accident using the accessed claimdata.
 128. The method of claim 126, wherein claim data is accessedfollowing a user-defined time period
 129. The method of claim 128,wherein in the user-defined time period comprises one of the following:daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly.
 130. The method of claim 126, whereinthe first database is associated with claim reporting software.
 131. Themethod of claim 126, wherein a communications software program accessesthe claim data for the one or more claims relating to the vehicleaccident from the first database on the computer system.
 132. The methodof claim 126, wherein a communications software program stores the claimdata on the second database on the computer system.
 133. The method ofclaim 126, wherein the claim data comprises policy data.
 134. The methodof claim 126, wherein the claim data comprises policy data.
 135. Themethod of claim 126, wherein the claim data comprises informationregarding parties involved in the vehicle accident.
 136. The method ofclaim 135, wherein the parties comprise an insured party and a claimantparty.
 137. The method of claim 135, wherein the parties comprise one ormore witnesses.
 138. The method of claim 135, wherein the informationregarding the parties involved in the vehicle accident comprises adescription of the vehicle accident provided by at least one of theparties.
 139. The method of claim 126, wherein the claim data comprisesa location, a date, and a time of the vehicle accident.
 140. The methodof claim 126, wherein the claim data comprises who reported the vehicleaccident, to whom the vehicle accident was reported, and whether policewere called.
 141. The method of claim 126, wherein the claim datacomprises content of a police report regarding the vehicle accident.142. The method of claim 126, wherein the claim data comprises whetherthere were injuries in the vehicle accident.
 143. The method of claim126, wherein the claim data comprises a jurisdiction in which thevehicle accident occurred.
 144. The method of claim 143, wherein thejurisdiction comprises a state or a territory of the United States. 145.The method of claim 126, wherein the claim data comprises a number ofvehicles involved in the vehicle accident.
 146. A system configured toestimate liability, comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU;and a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory isconfigured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU,and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a methodcomprising: accessing claim data for one or more claims relating to avehicle accident from a first database on a computer system; storing theclaim data on a second database on the computer system, wherein thesecond database is associated with a method and system for estimatingliability in the vehicle accident; and accessing the claim data for oneor more of the claims on the second database for use by the method andsystem for estimating liability in the vehicle accident.
 147. A carriermedium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructionsare computer-executable to implement a method comprising: accessingclaim data for one or more claims relating to a vehicle accident from afirst database on a computer system; storing the claim data on a seconddatabase on the computer system, wherein the second database isassociated with a method and system for estimating liability in thevehicle accident; and accessing the claim data for one or more of theclaims on the second database for use by the method and system forestimating liability in the vehicle accident.
 148. A method, comprising:requesting claim data for a claim relating to a vehicle accident;accessing the claim data for the claim from a first database on acomputer system if the claim data for the claim is not stored on asecond database; storing the claim data for the claim on the seconddatabase on the computer system, wherein the second database isassociated with a method and system for estimating liability in thevehicle accident; and accessing the claim data for the claim on thesecond database for use by the method and system for estimatingliability in the vehicle accident.
 149. The method of claim 148, furthercomprising estimating liability in the vehicle accident using theaccessed claim data.
 150. The method of claim 148, wherein the firstdatabase is associated with claim reporting software.
 151. The method ofclaim 148, wherein a communications software program accesses the claimdata for the claim from the first database on the computer system if theclaim data for the claim is not stored on the second database.
 152. Themethod of claim 148, wherein a communications software program storesthe claim data for the claim on the second database on the computersystem.
 153. A system configured to estimate liability, comprising: aCPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled tothe CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or morecomputer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computerprograms are executable to implement a method comprising: requestingclaim data for a claim relating to a vehicle accident; accessing theclaim data for the claim from a first database on a computer system ifthe claim data for the claim is not stored on a second database; storingthe claim data for the claim on the second database on the computersystem, wherein the second database is associated with a method andsystem for estimating liability in the vehicle accident; and accessingthe claim data for the claim on the second database for use by themethod and system for estimating liability in the vehicle accident. 154.A carrier medium comprising program instructions, wherein the programinstructions are computer-executable to implement a method comprising:requesting claim data for a claim relating to a vehicle accident;accessing the claim data for the claim from a first database on acomputer system if the claim data for the claim is not stored on asecond database; storing the claim data for the claim on the seconddatabase on the computer system, wherein the second database isassociated with a method and system for estimating liability in thevehicle accident; and accessing the claim data for the claim on thesecond database for use by the method and system for estimatingliability in the vehicle accident.
 155. A method, comprising: accessingclaim information on a computer system required by a pre-configuredclaim report for an accident from a database if a user-specifiedcondition is met; creating the pre-configured claim report comprisingthe accessed claim information; and sending the pre-configured claimreport to a user-specified location.
 156. The method of claim 155,wherein the user-specified condition comprises one of the following:settlement liability within a particular range, settlement liabilityless than a particular value, settlement liability greater than aparticular value, particular magnitude of discrepancy between assignedliability and settlement liability, assignment of an absolute liabilityvalue, assignment of a particular accident type, assignment of aparticular roadway configuration, assignment of a particular liability,assignment of a particular range of liability, or assignment of aparticular liability for a particular factor.
 157. The method of claim155, wherein the claim information comprises a liability estimated by acomputerized method of estimating liability in the accident.
 158. Themethod of claim 155, wherein accessing the required claim information isperformed by a business intelligence tool.
 159. The method of claim 155,wherein creating the pre-configured claim report is performed by abusiness intelligence tool.
 160. The method of claim 155, wherein theclaim information required by the pre-configured claim report comprisesone or more of the following: names of parties, adjuster identification,claim number, jurisdiction, accident details, liability assigned toparties, liability range assigned to parties, and discrepancy betweenassigned liability and settlement liability.
 161. The method of claim155, wherein the database is associated with a computerized method forestimating liability in a vehicle accident.
 162. The method of claim155, wherein the user-specified location comprises an electronicmailbox.
 163. The method of claim 155, wherein the user-specifiedlocation comprises a printer.
 164. A system configured to estimateliability, comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and asystem memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory isconfigured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU,and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a methodcomprising: accessing claim information on a computer system required bya pre-configured claim report for an accident from a database if auser-specified condition is met; creating the pre-configured claimreport comprising the accessed claim information; and sending thepre-configured claim report to a user-specified location.
 165. A carriermedium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructionsare computer-executable to implement a method comprising: accessingclaim information on a computer system required by a pre-configuredclaim report for an accident from a database if a user-specifiedcondition is met; creating the pre-configured claim report comprisingthe accessed claim information; and sending the pre-configured claimreport to a user-specified location.
 166. A method, comprising:accessing claim information on a computer system required by apre-configured claim report for an accident from a database periodicallyfollowing a user-specified time period; creating the pre-configuredclaim report comprising the accessed claim information; and sending thepre-configured claim report to a user-specified location.
 167. Themethod of claim 166, wherein the user-specified time period comprisesone of the following: daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly.
 168. Themethod of claim 166, wherein the claim report comprises claims with oneor more characteristics.
 169. The method of claim 168, wherein the oneor more characteristics comprise settled.
 170. The method of claim 168,wherein the one or more characteristics comprise settled within theuser-specified time period.
 171. The method of claim 168, wherein theone or more characteristics comprise a particular range of settlementvalue.
 172. The method of claim 168, wherein the one or morecharacteristics comprise a particular liability assignment.
 173. Themethod of claim 168, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise aparticular range of liability assignment.
 174. The method of claim 166,wherein the claim information comprises a liability estimated by acomputerized method of estimating liability in the accident.
 175. Themethod of claim 166, wherein accessing the required claim information isperformed by a business intelligence tool.
 176. The method of claim 166,wherein creating the pre-configured claim report is performed by abusiness intelligence tool.
 177. A system configured to estimateliability, comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and asystem memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory isconfigured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU,and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a methodcomprising: accessing claim information on a computer system required bya pre-configured claim report for an accident from a databaseperiodically following a user-specified time period; creating thepre-configured claim report comprising the accessed claim information;and sending the pre-configured claim report to a user-specifiedlocation.
 178. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, whereinthe program instructions are computer-executable to implement a methodcomprising: accessing claim information on a computer system required bya pre-configured claim report for an accident from a databaseperiodically following a user-specified time period; creating thepre-configured claim report comprising the accessed claim information;and sending the pre-configured claim report to a user-specifiedlocation.
 179. A method, comprising: requesting a pre-configured claimreport on a computer system relating to an accident; accessing claiminformation required by the pre-configured claim report from a database;creating the pre-configured claim report comprising the accessed claiminformation; and sending the pre-configured claim report to auser-specified location.
 180. The method of claim 179, wherein the claiminformation comprises a liability estimated by a computerized method ofestimating liability in the accident.
 181. The method of claim 179,wherein accessing the required claim information is performed by abusiness intelligence tool.
 182. The method of claim 179, whereincreating the pre-configured claim report is performed by a businessintelligence tool.
 183. A system configured to estimate liability,comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memorycoupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store oneor more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein thecomputer programs are executable to implement a method comprising:requesting a pre-configured claim report on a computer system relatingto an accident; accessing claim information required by thepre-configured claim report from a database; creating the pre-configuredclaim report comprising the accessed claim information; and sending thepre-configured claim report to a user-specified location.
 184. A carriermedium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructionsare computer-executable to implement a method comprising: requesting apre-configured claim report on a computer system relating to anaccident; accessing claim information required by the pre-configuredclaim report from a database; creating the pre-configured claim reportcomprising the accessed claim information; and sending thepre-configured claim report to a user-specified location.
 185. A methodof estimating liability for an accident using a computer system,comprising: recording vehicle data of a vehicle relating to the accidentin memory on the computer system; and estimating an effect of thevehicle data on the liability of a party in the accident.
 186. Themethod of claim 185, further comprising determining one or moreproperties from the vehicle data.
 187. The method of claim 186, furthercomprising estimating an effect of the one or more properties on theliability of the party in the accident.
 188. The method of claim 186,wherein the one or more properties comprise a distance traveled beforethe accident.
 189. The method of claim 186, wherein the one or moreproperties comprise a distance traveled after braking.
 190. The methodof claim 186, wherein the one or more properties comprise anacceleration.
 191. The method of claim 186, wherein the one or moreproperties comprise a point of impact.
 192. The method of claim 186,wherein the one or more properties comprise an angle of impact.
 193. Themethod of claim 185, wherein the computer system is located in thevehicle.
 194. The method of claim 185, wherein the computer systemcomprises an airbag module.
 195. The method of claim 185, furthercomprising storing the recorded vehicle data.
 196. The method of claim185, further comprising decoding the vehicle data.
 197. The method ofclaim 196, wherein a Crash Data Retrieval system decodes the vehicledata.
 198. The method of claim 185, wherein the vehicle data of avehicle comprises the pre-impact speed.
 199. The method of claim 185,wherein the vehicle data of a vehicle comprises braking before theaccident.
 200. The method of claim 185, wherein the vehicle data of avehicle comprises engine RPM before the accident.
 201. The method ofclaim 185, wherein the vehicle data of a vehicle comprises throttleposition before the accident.
 202. The method of claim 185, furthercomprising evaluating accuracy of information relating to the accidentprovided by one or more sources.
 203. The method of claim 202, whereinthe one or more sources comprise an insured.
 204. The method of claim202, wherein the one or more sources comprise a claimant.
 205. Themethod of claim 202, wherein the one or more sources comprise a witness.206. The method of claim 202, wherein the one or more sources comprise apassenger.
 207. The method of claim 202, wherein the one or more sourcescomprise a police report.
 208. The method of claim 202, wherein the oneor more sources comprise a weather report, and an accidentreconstruction report.
 209. The method of claim 202, wherein the one ormore sources comprise an accident reconstruction report.
 210. The methodof claim 202, wherein evaluating accuracy of information relating to theaccident provided by the one or more sources comprises comparing thevehicle data to the information from the one or more sources.
 211. Asystem configured to estimate liability, comprising: a CPU; a datamemory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to the CPU,wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computerprograms executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs areexecutable to implement a method of estimating liability for anaccident, the method comprising: recording vehicle data of a vehiclerelating to the accident in memory on the computer system; andestimating an effect of the vehicle data on the liability of a party inthe accident.
 212. A carrier medium comprising program instructions,wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement amethod of estimating liability for an accident, the method comprising:recording vehicle data of a vehicle relating to the accident in memoryon the computer system; and estimating an effect of the vehicle data onthe liability of a party in the accident.
 213. A method of estimatingliability for an accident using a computer system, comprising: recordingvehicle data of a vehicle relating to the accident in memory on thecomputer system; storing the recorded vehicle data on the computersystem; and estimating an effect of the vehicle data on the liability ofa party in the accident.
 214. The method of claim 213, furthercomprising decoding the vehicle data for use by the computer system inestimating the effect of the vehicle data on the liability of the partyin the accident.
 215. The method of claim 214, wherein a Crash DataRetrieval system decodes the vehicle data.
 216. The method of claim 213,further comprising determining one or more properties from the vehicledata.
 217. The method of claim 216, wherein the one or more propertiescomprise distance traveled before the accident.
 218. The method of claim216, wherein the one or more properties comprise distance traveled afterbraking.
 219. The method of claim 216, wherein the one or moreproperties comprise acceleration.
 220. The method of claim 216, whereinthe one or more properties comprise point of impact.
 221. The method ofclaim 216, wherein the one or more properties comprise angle of impact.222. The method of claim 213, wherein the computer system is located inthe vehicle.
 223. The method of claim 213, wherein the computer systemcomprises an airbag module.
 224. The method of claim 213, furthercomprising decoding the stored vehicle data.
 225. The method of claim224, wherein a Crash Data Retrieval system decodes the vehicle data.226. The method of claim 213, wherein the vehicle data comprises speedof the vehicle.
 227. The method of claim 213, wherein the vehicle datacomprises braking of the vehicle before the accident.
 228. The method ofclaim 213, wherein the vehicle data comprises engine RPM.
 229. Themethod of claim 213, wherein the vehicle data comprises throttleposition.
 230. A system configured to estimate liability, comprising: aCPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled tothe CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or morecomputer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computerprograms are executable to implement a method of estimating liabilityfor an accident, the method comprising: recording vehicle data of avehicle relating to the accident in memory on the computer system;storing the recorded vehicle data on the computer system; and estimatingan effect of the vehicle data on the liability of a party in theaccident.
 231. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, whereinthe program instructions are computer-executable to implement a methodof estimating liability for an accident, the method comprising:recording vehicle data of a vehicle relating to the accident in memoryon the computer system; storing the recorded vehicle data on thecomputer system; and estimating an effect of the vehicle data on theliability of a party in the accident.
 232. A method of estimatingliability for an accident, comprising: recording vehicle data of avehicle relating to the accident in memory on a first computer system;storing the recorded vehicle data on the first computer system;retrieving the stored vehicle data from the first computer system with asecond computer system; and estimating an effect of the vehicle data onliability of a party in the accident.
 233. The method of claim 232,further comprising decoding the vehicle data for use by second computersystem in estimating the effect of the vehicle data on the liability ofthe party in the accident.
 234. The method of claim 232, wherein thefirst computer system is located in the vehicle.
 235. The method ofclaim 232, wherein the first computer system comprises an airbag module.236. The method of claim 232, further comprising decoding the vehicledata.
 237. The method of claim 232, wherein the second computer systemcomprises a Crash Data Retrieval system.
 238. The method of claim 232,wherein the Crash Data Retrieval system decodes the vehicle data. 239.The method of claim 232, wherein the liability is estimated on a thirdcomputer system.
 240. The method of claim 232, further comprisingevaluating accuracy of information relating to the accident provided byone or more sources.
 241. A system configured to estimate liability,comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memorycoupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store oneor more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein thecomputer programs are executable to implement a method of estimatingliability for an accident, the method comprising: recording vehicle dataof a vehicle relating to the accident in memory on a first computersystem; storing the recorded vehicle data on the first computer system;retrieving the stored vehicle data from the first computer system with asecond computer system; and estimating an effect of the vehicle data onliability of a party in the accident.
 242. A carrier medium comprisingprogram instructions, wherein the program instructions arecomputer-executable to implement a method of estimating liability for anaccident, the method comprising: recording vehicle data of a vehiclerelating to the accident in memory on a first computer system; storingthe recorded vehicle data on the first computer system; retrieving thestored vehicle data from the first computer system with a secondcomputer system; and estimating an effect of the vehicle data onliability of a party in the accident.
 243. A method of assessing a claimin a vehicle accident using a computer system, comprising: estimatinginjuries to one or more vehicle occupants in the vehicle accident,wherein the injuries to the one or more vehicle occupants are estimatedfrom one or more variables; estimating damages due to the injuries ofthe one or more vehicle occupants; estimating liability of parties inthe accident; and determining adjusted damages due to injuries from theestimated damages due to injuries and the liability of the parties. 244.The method of claim 243, wherein, the injuries to the one or moreoccupants are estimated by WrExpert.
 245. The method of claim 243,wherein the one or more variables comprise impact forces on vehicles inthe accident.
 246. The method of claim 245, wherein the impact forcesare estimated from the pre-impact speeds.
 247. The method of claim 246,wherein the pre-impact speed of the vehicles in the accident areestimated from crush damage to the vehicles.
 248. The method of claim246, wherein the pre-impact speed of one or more of the vehicles in theaccident are obtained from data recorded on the one or more vehicles.249. The method of claim 243, wherein the one or more variables compriseweight of the vehicles in the accident.
 250. The method of claim 243,wherein the one or more variables comprise positions of occupants in thevehicles.
 251. The method of claim 243, wherein the one or morevariables comprise pre-impact speed of the vehicles in the accident.252. The method of claim 243, wherein the estimated damages due toinjuries comprise pain and suffering damages.
 253. The method of claim243, wherein damages due to injuries are estimated by COLOSSUS.
 254. Themethod of claim 243, wherein determining the adjusted damages due to theinjuries comprise reducing the estimated damages due to injuries of thevehicle occupant by the particular party's liability.
 255. A systemconfigured to estimate liability, comprising: a CPU; a data memorycoupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein thesystem memory is configured to store one or more computer programsexecutable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executableto implement a method of assessing a claim in a vehicle accident, themethod comprising: estimating injuries to one or more vehicle occupantsin the vehicle accident, wherein the injuries to the one or more vehicleoccupants are estimated from one or more variables; estimating damagesdue to the injuries of the one or more vehicle occupants; estimatingliability of parties in the accident; and determining adjusted damagesdue to injuries from the estimated damages due to injuries and theliability of the parties.
 256. A carrier medium comprising programinstructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executableto implement a method of assessing a claim in a vehicle accident, themethod comprising: estimating injuries to one or more vehicle occupantsin the vehicle accident, wherein the injuries to the one or more vehicleoccupants are estimated from one or more variables; estimating damagesdue to the injuries of the one or more vehicle occupants; estimatingliability of parties in the accident; and determining adjusted damagesdue to injuries from the estimated damages due to injuries and theliability of the parties.
 257. A method of estimating liability for anaccident using a computer system, comprising: estimating pre-impactspeeds of one or more vehicles in the accident from the crush damage ofthe one or more vehicles; and estimating an effect of the pre-impactspeeds of the one or more vehicles on the liability of parties in theaccident.
 258. The method of claim 257, wherein WrExpert estimates thepre-impact speeds of the one or more vehicles in the accident from thecrush damage of the one or more vehicles.
 259. A system configured toestimate liability, comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU;and a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory isconfigured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU,and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a methodof estimating liability for an accident, the method comprising:estimating pre-impact speeds of one or more vehicles in the accidentfrom the crush damage of the one or more vehicles; and estimating aneffect of the pre-impact speeds of the one or more vehicles on theliability of parties in the accident.
 260. A carrier medium comprisingprogram instructions, wherein the program instructions arecomputer-executable to implement a method of estimating liability for anaccident, the method comprising: estimating pre-impact speeds of one ormore vehicles in the accident from the crush damage of the one or morevehicles; and estimating an effect of the pre-impact speeds of the oneor more vehicles on the liability of parties in the accident.